[Proposed] Order Granting Third-Party Plaintiff

Date: 2021-11-29

Summary

A proposed order filed November 29, 2021 as Document 205-1 in Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, including the third-party action of Chain Bridge Bank, N.A. against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The proposed order would grant Chain Bridge's motion to file a redacted version of its reply in support of its motion to establish the amount of indemnified fees and expenses to be awarded from JPMorgan Chase, and to keep the unredacted reply under permanent seal. It states that the reply quotes billing records the court already ordered sealed (Dkt. No. 197) and applies the sealing test of Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc. and case law on privilege in billing records. The signature line for Judge Leonie M. Brinkema is undated.

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 Third-Party Plaintiff.” Original at ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov, dated 2021-11-29. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2021-11-29-plaintiff-v-chain-bridge-bank-n-a-john-j-3d085b1b-1/, SHA-256 3d085b1b7c90f88038344938a52fa0f4cd8eb79d441f320bb75a6a77a73a4689.

Full text

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 205-1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID#
5235

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,

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Third-Party Defendant.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Before the Court is Third-Party Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.’s (Chain Bridge) motion

file a redacted version of its Reply in Support of its Motion To Establish The Amount Of

Indemnified Fees And Expenses To Be Awarded From Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan Chase

Bank, N.A. (JPMC), and to maintain the unredacted version of Chain Bridge’s Reply under

permanent seal. Chain Bridge’s Reply discusses and quotes from certain billing records that were

submitted by 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). Chain Bridge seeks to file a redacted version of its Reply on the public

docket, which redacts references to the information that this Court has previously sealed.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 205-1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID#
5236

The Court has considered Chain Bridge’s motion to seal, 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). The public received notice of the

request when Chain Bridge filed the Motion to Seal and accompanying Notice of Motion to Seal

on November 29, 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). Chain

Bridge has not asked the Court to seal the Reply in its entirety, but instead seeks the “less drastic

alternative” of filing the Reply 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-

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

2
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 205-1 Filed 11/29/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID#
5237

(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

Chain Bridge’s unredacted Reply in Support of its Motion to Establish the Amount of Indemnified

Fees and Expenses to Be Awarded from JPMC shall be maintained permanently under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Entered this _________ day of _________ 2021.

Leonie M. Brinkema
United States District Judge

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.205.1.pdf
Size: 155,579 bytes
SHA-256: 3d085b1b7c90f88038344938a52fa0f4cd8eb79d441f320bb75a6a77a73a4689
Our copy: gov.uscourts.vaed.477405.205.1.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)