Roche Freedman LLP v. Cyrulnik

1

ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP, Plaintiff, v. JASON CYRULNIK, Defendant.

No. 21-CV-01746 (JGK)(SN)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 4, 2023

ORDER

SARAH NETBURN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

This order follows a protracted exchange between the parties and the Court regarding the sealing of numerous documents filed in connection with the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 422, 426, 436, 439, 440, 444, 445 451, 459, 469, and 478.

The Court is skeptical of the propriety of sealing most of the filings at issue. All parties are reminded that a party seeking sealing bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of public access, a presumption that is particularly strong at the summary judgment stage. See Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 49-50 (2d Cir. 2019). The Court of Appeals has observed that such public access “is integral to our system of government.” United States v. Erie Cnty., N.Y., 763 F.3d 235 238-39 (2d Cir. 2014). For this reason, the parties' mutual insistence on exploiting what is typically a routine matter to find some marginal strategic edge is as disappointing as it is frustrating. Moreover, the parties' various submissions have done little to adequately frame or narrow the issues before the Court despite direction from both myself and Judge Koeltl. See ECF Nos. 449, 455.

For these reasons, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court declines, without prejudice, the parties' varied sealing requests. However, the documents already filed under seal shall remain sealed pending further order of the Court. As explained below, the Court will hold a hearing to provide the parties with final rulings on what may or may not be sealed in this matter, after which the parties will be given the opportunity to withdraw their current exhibits and refile more concise versions with considerably more limited redactions.

In advance of that hearing, the parties are ORDERED to reevaluate their submissions and designations and ensure that their amended proposals are both narrowly tailored and appropriate under the law. The parties are further ORDERED to deliver two (2) bound copies of their proposed amended summary judgment filings with highlighted redactions to my chambers no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 10, 2023. No written argument should accompany these submissions. The Court intends to walk through every designation with the parties and has set aside two hours for that purpose. Should that prove insufficient the Court will hold an additional hearing at a later date.

Accordingly, a hearing is scheduled for Friday, August 11, 2023, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 219, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. At this hearing the parties will present to the Court, with specificity and direct supporting authority, what portions of their amended summary judgment papers they believe should be filed under seal. To facilitate the parties' preparation for this hearing, the Court makes the following preliminary observations of law:

Any sealing request made pursuant to attorney-client privilege must properly invoke that privilege. Communications that happen to be between lawyers or made in the presence of lawyers, or that merely occur at a law firm or in the context of ongoing litigation are not inherently privileged. Further “the fact of representation is generally neither privileged nor confidential” and “attorney-client privilege and the duty to preserve client confidences and secrets are not co-extensive[.]” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 145 (2d...