Rakower Law PLLC v. Berner
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-06439
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rakower Law v. Berner, Judge Rearden denied without prejudice a request to seal exhibits because it did not justify sealing under court rules.
The ruling directly affected Defendants Ricardo Berner and Practiko, LLC’s request to keep nine exhibits sealed. The documents remained under seal temporarily while a possible renewed request could be filed.
What happened
In Rakower Law PLLC v. Berner, Defendants Ricardo Berner and Practiko, LLC asked the court to seal nine exhibits filed in support of Rakower Law PLLC’s summary-judgment motion. They said the exhibits contained privileged communications, attorney invoices, and confidential settlement terms.
The court found that the request did not explain why or how sealing the documents satisfied the court’s requirement that sealing be narrowly tailored and consistent with the presumption that judicial documents should be public. The court also said that a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement generally is not enough by itself to justify sealing.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied the request without prejudice. The defendants could renew it by April 22, 2024, after the parties met and conferred in good faith. The clerk was directed to terminate two docket entries and keep the documents currently under seal while a renewed request remained possible.
The detailed version
- Rakower Law PLLC v. Berner · No. 1:21-cv-06439
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 31, 2024
Background
Defendants Ricardo Berner and Practiko, LLC moved to seal nine exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff Rakower Law PLLC’s motion for summary judgment. The requested materials were:
- Exhibit 5, an email chain between the defendants and Michael Rakower concerning mediation strategy in a Florida action, which the defendants described as protected by attorney-client privilege; - Exhibits 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 22, and 30, invoices issued by Rakower Law PLLC in connection with the Florida action, which the defendants said contained attorney-client and work-product privileged communications; and - Exhibit 31, a settlement agreement from the Florida action, which the defendants said contained confidential and sensitive information and included a confidentiality clause.
The defendants stated that the documents had already been filed under seal and that the parties had attempted, unsuccessfully, to meet and confer about the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court’s individual rules required a sealing request to be narrowly tailored to the purpose supporting sealing and to account for the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court held that the defendants had not explained why or how sealing the identified documents complied with that standard.
The court also rejected reliance on the settlement agreement’s confidentiality provision as sufficient by itself. The court’s rules state that, generally, the fact that information is covered by a confidentiality agreement between litigants does not overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ sealing motion without prejudice. It stated that the defendants could renew the request by April 22, 2024, and reminded the parties that they were required to meet and confer in good faith to narrow the scope of any request. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 99 and 111 and to maintain the currently sealed documents under seal pending a possible renewed motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.