Opinion
Civil Action RE-17-219
03-03-2020
SMR, INC., Plaintiff v. CIANBRO CORP., et al., Defendants
Plaintiff-John Hobson, Esq. Defendants-Elizabeth Germani, Esq.
Plaintiff-John Hobson, Esq.
Defendants-Elizabeth Germani, Esq.
ORDER
THOMAS D. WARREN, JUSTICE
Before the court is an application by defendant Cianbro Corporation for attorney's fees and costs. The court is prepared to rule on that application but will first address Cianbro's motion to submit its attorney's fee affidavit and the redacted billing records attached to that affidavit under seal.
Plaintiff SMR Inc., which was served with copies of the documents that Cianbro seeks to submit under seal, opposes Cianbro's attorney's fees application but has not opposed Cianbro's motion to submit the affidavit and billing records under seal.
However, even if the parties agree, the court is not willing to remove the materials that form the basis for the court's ruling from the public record. Cianbro relies on the affidavit and the attached billing records to support its application for attorney's fees.
Court proceedings are presumptively open to the public, and with the exception of discovery materials, that presumption applies to motions as well as hearings and trials. This is particularly true of documents on which the court relies in determining litigants' substantive rights. FTC v. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d 404, 408 & n.4 (1st Cir 1987). `The principle that court proceedings are open to the public is a fundamental tenet of our judicial system, protected by both the common law and the First Amendment. See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119-21 (2d Cir. 2006); FTC v. Standard Financial Management, 830 F.2d at 408; Publicker Industries v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1066 (3d Cir, 1984). The court does not believe that it should make decisions on a secret record or a record from which crucial portions have been withheld from public access unless a party seeking confidentiality can demonstrate strong countervailing interests.
Cianbro has not demonstrated a sufficiently strong confidentiality interest to overcome the presumption of public access in this case. It argues that the information in the billing records is confidential and privileged, but it has redacted, all of the portions of the billing records that would disclose attorney-client communications.
In fact, counsel for SMR argues that Cianbro has redacted so much information that it has failed to show that the attorney's fees sought are reasonable.
Accordingly, the motion to seal is denied and the affidavit and attached records shall be placed in the public court file.
The entry shall be;
Defendant's motion to seal its attorney's fee affidavit and attached billing records is denied.. The clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).