Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents [Proposed] Order Granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to File an Unredacted Memorandum in Opposition Under Seal — Blue Flame v. Chain Bridge, Case 1:20-cv-00658, Doc. 204-1 (Filed 11/26/21)

[Proposed] Order Granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to File an Unredacted Memorandum in Opposition Under Seal — Blue Flame v. Chain Bridge, Case 1:20-cv-00658, Doc. 204-1 (Filed 11/26/21)

Summary

A proposed order in Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., John J. Brough, and David M. Evinger, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, filed November 26, 2021 as Document 204-1. It would grant third-party defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion to file under seal an unredacted memorandum opposing Chain Bridge's motion to establish the amount of indemnified fees and expenses to be awarded from JPMC. The draft states that the opposition quotes billing records designated Confidential under the stipulated protective order and that a redacted version was filed as Dkt. No. 203. It cites the sealing test of Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc. and would order that the unredacted memorandum (Dkt. No. 202) be maintained permanently under seal. The three-page order has a signature line for Judge Leonie M. Brinkema.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“[Proposed] Order Granting JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s Motion to File an Unredacted Memorandum in Opposition Under Seal — Blue Flame v. Chain Bridge, Case 1:20-cv-00658, Doc. 204-1 (Filed 11/26/21).” Original at ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-11-26-plaintiff-v-chain-bridge-bank-n-a-john-j-1e087faf-1/, SHA-256 1e087faf293d2a96f2e7f119601c6983c25790962ed7133ea19d2cb73477078f.

Full text

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD             Document 204-1      Filed 11/26/21      Page 1 of 3 PageID#
                                              5229



                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
                                  (Alexandria Division)

   BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,

                          Plaintiff,
                                                         Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658
   v.

   CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A., JOHN J.
   BROUGH, and DAVID M. EVINGER,

                          Defendants.

   CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A,

                          Third-Party Plaintiff,

   v.

   JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

                          Third-Party Defendant.


  [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S MOTION TO
     FILE AN UNREDACTED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION UNDER SEAL

        Before the Court is JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (JPMC’s) Motion to File an Unredacted

 Memorandum in Opposition to Chain Bridge’s Motion to Establish the Amount of Indemnified

 Fees and Expenses to Be Awarded from JPMC Under Provisional Seal (Dkt. No. 199). JPMC

 requested leave to file its Opposition under provisional seal because it contains information that

 has been designated as “Confidential” under the stipulated protective order entered in this case. In

 particular, JPMC’s Opposition discusses and quotes from certain billing records that were

 submitted by Chain Bridge Bank, N.A. (Chain Bridge) in support of its motion to establish the

 amount of indemnified fees (see Dkt. No. 196), and which this Court has already determined

 should remain under permanent seal (see Dkt. No. 197). JPMC has filed a redacted version of its
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD           Document 204-1         Filed 11/26/21      Page 2 of 3 PageID#
                                            5230



 Opposition on the public docket, which redacts references to the information that Chain Bridge

 has designated as Confidential. See Dkt. No. 203. Chain Bridge has filed a response in support

 of JPMC’s sealing motion, in which it requests that the Court maintain the unredacted Opposition

 under permanent seal.

        The Court has considered JPMC’s sealing motion and Chain Bridge’s response, and

 concludes that the requirements for sealing are satisfied here for the same reasons set forth in the

 Court’s prior order concerning Chain Bridge’s billing records. See Dkt. 197.

        “[B]efore a district court may seal any court documents, . . . it must (1) provide public

 notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to object, (2)

 consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and

 factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.”

 Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the public received notice of

 the request when JPMC filed the Motion to Seal and accompanying Notice of Motion to Seal on

 November 18, 2021. See L. Civ. R. 5(C); see also, e.g., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon

 Indus., Inc., No. 3:09-CV-058, 2012 WL 1415638, at *2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2012). JPMC and

 Chain Bridge have not asked the Court to seal JPMC’s Opposition in its entirety, but instead seek

 the “less drastic alternative” of filing the Opposition in redacted form. See, e.g., ActiveVideo

 Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-248, 2011 WL 7046021, at *2 (E.D. Va.

 Dec. 7, 2011).

        Moreover, the information at issue is properly viewed as confidential and redacting it will

 not limit the public’s ability to observe and understand these proceedings. Billing records that

 would “reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific

 nature of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law, fall within [attorney-




                                                   2
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD           Document 204-1         Filed 11/26/21      Page 3 of 3 PageID#
                                            5231



 client] privilege.” Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 402 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Clarke v.

 American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Denton v. PennyMac

 Loan Servs., LLC, 252 F. Supp. 3d 504, 508 (E.D. Va. 2017) (“Parties are generally entitled to

 assert privilege and redact records in connection with motions for fees.”) (internal quotation marks

 omitted); Brown v. Tethys Bioscience, Inc., No. CIV.A. 1:10-1245, 2012 WL 252632, at *3

 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 26, 2012) (holding that where “billing records contain information respecting a

 party’s litigation strategy, that information is attorney-client privileged and need not be disclosed.

 Billing records should be redacted to exclude such information and then disclosed.”) (citation

 omitted).

        Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Seal. The Court ORDERS that

 JPMC’s Unredacted Memorandum in Opposition to Chain Bridge’s Motion to Establish the

 Amount of Indemnified Fees and Expenses to Be Awarded from JPMC (Dkt. No. 202) shall be

 maintained permanently under seal.

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Entered this _________ day of _________ 2021.




                                                Leonie M. Brinkema
                                                United States District Judge




                                                   3

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.204.1.pdf
Size
155,828 bytes
SHA-256
1e087faf293d2a96f2e7f119601c6983c25790962ed7133ea19d2cb73477078f
Our copy
gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.204.1.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top