Lebenns v. Frost Productions
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-11155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, Judge Moses ordered public filing of counsel’s time records unless plaintiff properly sought permission to redact them.
Andrew Lebenns and his counsel, who were required to publicly file the time records or properly seek permission to redact them; the opinion does not state a disposition of the defendants’ settlement-approval motion.
What happened
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, the parties asked the court to approve a settlement of Andrew Lebenns’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court also received the plaintiff’s lawyer’s retainer agreements, expense invoices, and heavily redacted time records.
The court had previously denied the plaintiff’s request to keep the time records entirely sealed and directed him to file them promptly. The plaintiff instead filed a heavily redacted version without first asking for permission to redact it. The opinion does not state how the court ruled on the parties’ settlement-approval motion.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the plaintiff, by May 17, 2024, either to file the time records publicly with only legally permitted redactions or to seek permission for specific redactions under the court’s filing rules. She also reminded the parties that communications with the court generally must be filed as a motion or letter, not sent by email.
The detailed version
- Lebenns v. Frost Productions · No. 1:21-cv-11155
- Barbara Moses
- May 14, 2024
Background
The court received three items within a 24-hour period: the parties’ joint motion asking for approval of their settlement concerning Andrew Lebenns’s claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act; a letter from Lebenns’s counsel attaching retainer agreements, invoices for transcription expenses, and heavily redacted time records; and an email from counsel about the timing of a request to file the time records entirely under seal and outside the public docket.
The court reminded the parties that communications from represented parties generally must be submitted by a filed motion or letter, rather than by email. It also referred the parties to the judge’s individual practices and the district’s electronic filing rules for requests to seal or redact documents.
Sealing and Redaction of Time Records
Lebenns had previously asked to file his attorney’s time records entirely under seal. The court denied that request the previous afternoon because the request gave only a general reference to the documents’ sensitive and confidential nature and did not explain what specific interests overcame the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. The court then directed Lebenns to promptly file the records as previously ordered.
Instead, Lebenns filed the records in heavily redacted form without first asking for or receiving permission to redact them. The court stated that a party may not impose redactions in violation of a prior order, the judge’s individual practices, and the electronic filing rules.
Order
The court ordered that, no later than May 17, 2024, Lebenns must either:
1. File counsel’s time records on the public docket without redactions, except for redactions allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and the judge’s individual practices; or 2. File a letter-motion seeking permission for the proposed redactions, explain the specific reasons for each requested redaction, and file an unredacted copy under seal with the proposed redactions highlighted and linked to the letter-motion.
The court emphasized that any approved sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored and consistent with public access to judicial documents. This order does not state a disposition of the parties’ joint motion for settlement approval.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.