Opinion
2021-06766 Index 190426/14
12-02-2021
John Marullo, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Amchem Products, Inc., et al., Defendants, J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal No. 14731 No. 2020-03324
Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP, New York (Anna Hwang of counsel), for appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for respondents.
Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP, New York (Anna Hwang of counsel), for appellant.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Oing, Shulman, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2020, which denied defendant J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s motion to seal certain documents, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to place under seal copies of a certain document previously deemed privileged by this Court, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
This Court previously determined that the legal memorandum at issue, created by in-house counsel for J-M in the 1980s, was privileged but that J-M had waived the privilege with respect to a redacted version of the memorandum (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 151 A.D.3d 550 [1st Dept 2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 1055 [2018]). Thus, J-M's arguments concerning privilege with respect to the redacted version, advanced under the guise of a motion to seal, are barred by collateral estoppel (see Buechel v Bain, 97 N.Y.2d 295, 303-405 [2001], cert denied 535 U.S. 1096 [2002]). They are also unavailing. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution does not compel this State to substitute the decisions of other states for its own decisions on privilege issues (see JP Morgan Chase & Co. v Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 98 A.D.3d 18, 25 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 N.Y.3d 858 [2013]).
J-M failed to show that good cause existed to seal all court records that included or described the redacted memo (see 22 NYCRR 216.1; see e.g. Mosallem v Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 350 [1st Dept 2010]; Applehead Pictures LLC v Perelman, 80 A.D.3d 181, 191-192 [1st Dept 2010]). However, the unredacted memo, since it is privileged, should be sealed.
The settlement of this action did not render the issue of sealing filed documents moot (see New York State Commn. on Jud. Conduct v Rubenstein, 23 N.Y.3d 570 [2014]; see also Vergara v Mission Capital Advisors, LLC, 187 A.D.3d 495 [1st Dept 2020]).