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 a conference and required proper procedures before considering redacted timesheets.
Plaintiff Andrew Lebenns and the parties involved in the settlement-approval process were affected by the court’s filing requirements and scheduled conference.
What happened
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, Plaintiff Andrew Lebenns submitted his counsel’s time records with information removed while the court was considering approval of the parties’ settlement.
The court said it had twice instructed Lebenns that he needed permission to file redacted timesheets. He had not filed the required request, explained the specific reasons for each proposed redaction, or filed the unredacted timesheets under seal for the court to review. The court also scheduled a telephone conference for May 28, 2024, to discuss the time records and filing requirements.
Judge Barbara Moses stated that the court could not allow the plaintiff to disregard the governing rules and court orders, although it did not want to further delay the settlement-approval process.
The detailed version
- Lebenns v. Frost Productions · No. 1:21-cv-11155
- Barbara Moses
- May 23, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Andrew Lebenns filed a version of his counsel’s timesheets with what he described as “confidential information removed.” The court had previously explained twice that, if Lebenns wanted to submit the timesheets in redacted form, he had to seek permission under Judge Moses’s Individual Practices and the electronic filing rules.
Court’s Requirements
The court stated that Lebenns needed to: (1) electronically file a letter-motion requesting permission to redact; (2) explain the particular reasons for placing the information under seal; and (3) file an unredacted copy of the timesheets under seal, with the proposed redactions highlighted, and link that filing to the letter-motion. The court also referred to the standards governing access to judicial documents, including the Second Circuit’s decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
The court found that Lebenns had done none of those things. It noted that the limited information automatically protected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)—such as Social Security numbers, taxpayer-identification numbers, birth dates, minors’ names, and financial-account numbers—was different from the broader “confidential information” described in the filing.
Order
The court scheduled a telephone conference for May 28, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties were directed to call the specified conference number and access code shortly before the conference and be prepared to discuss the submitted time records and the court’s filing requirements. Judge Moses stated that, despite the court’s desire not to delay settlement approval, it could not permit the plaintiff to ignore the applicable rules and prior orders. The opinion does not state that a motion was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.