Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
(Alexandria Division)
BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A., JOHN J.
BROUGH, and DAVID M. EVINGER,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00658
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Third-Party Defendant.
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.’S
RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 1, 2021
Third-Party Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank, N.A. (Chain Bridge) respectfully submits this
response to the Court’s Order dated December 1, 2021 (Dkt. No. 210). The December 1 Order
vacated the Court’s earlier order (Dkt. No. 197) granting Chain Bridge’s motion (Dkt. Nos. 187 &
188) to seal invoices that Chain Bridge had paid to counsel and experts in connection with this
action, and which Chain Bridge had submitted in support of its motion to establish its indemnified
fees and expenses (Dkt. No. 194).
1. The Court appears to have understood Chain Bridge to have moved to seal all its
invoices in their entirety. Order at 2. The Court rejected such wholesale sealing, and directed
Chain Bridge to file the invoices publicly. Id. at 2-3.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 211 Filed 12/06/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID#
5284
2
It was not Chain Bridge’s intent, however, to file the entirety of its invoices under seal.
Although Chain Bridge moved to seal the full versions of these invoices, it simultaneously filed
redacted versions of them on the public docket, at Dkt Nos. 196-1, -2, -3, & -4.1 The public
versions include many time entries in their entirety, and disclose the hours, timekeeper, hourly
rate, and total fee associated with every entry for which Chain Bridge seeks reimbursement. The
content redacted from the public versions (but not redacted from the sealed versions) consists of
portions of time entries that specifically describe attorneys’ and experts’ research, strategy, and
other work. Chain Bridge submitted that those redacted descriptions—if disclosed to Plaintiff Blue
Flame Medical LLC—might prejudice both Chain Bridge and Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan
Chase in Blue Flame’s appeal from the Court’s judgment.2
Chain Bridge understands, however, that the Court concluded in its December 1 Order that
no entry in the invoices’ sealed versions is sufficiently sensitive and confidential that Chain Bridge
can redact it from the public versions available to Blue Flame. Accordingly, Chain Bridge is today
re-filing its invoices on the public docket, consistent with the Court’s Order.
2. The invoices in the version of Exhibit 1 that Chain Bridge is filing publicly today contain
a small number of remaining redactions from the descriptions of indemnified fees.3 The Court’s
1 Chain Bridge provided courtesy copies to Chambers of the sealed versions of these exhibits. But because
the Court promptly granted the motion to seal, Chain Bridge did not then provide the Court courtesy copies
of the redacted, public versions. It regrets if this caused the Court to conclude that there were no publicly
filed versions of these exhibits.
2 In Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 402 (1999), the Fourth Circuit held that attorney time records
disclosing “the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching particular areas of law” need
not be produced even to the party from which fee reimbursement is sought, let alone disclosed publicly
during fee litigation. See also Mot. to Seal (Dkt. No. 188) at 3 (citing cases). Here, the party from which
reimbursement is being sought, JPMC, did receive the sealed exhibits.
3 Exhibit 2 reflects time entries that are redacted because they are not included in Chain Bridge’s calculation
of its indemnified fees and expenses. Those entries were not related to this action and did not result from
the wire cancellation. The exhibits also reflect customary redactions of account numbers and taxpayer
identification numbers.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 211 Filed 12/06/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID#
5285
3
December 1 Order (at 2-3) observed that these and other entries had been redacted from even the
previously sealed versions of these exhibits. The remaining redactions fall into two categories.
First, five redacted time entries, totaling $2,002.50, reflect information the disclosure of which is
strictly prohibited by federal banking laws.4 Second, another 15 redacted time entries, totaling
$27,293, reflect information that if disclosed to JPMC could prejudice Chain Bridge in JPMC’s
appeal from the Court’s judgment. That is because those entries reveal potential legal theories,
causes of action, or defendants that Chain Bridge did not pursue in this case (and so, did not reveal
to JPMC as part of the litigation of this action).5 As Chain Bridge explained in its motion to seal
(see Dkt. No. 188, at 2 n.1), JPMC has never identified concerns with these limited redactions, and
JPMC has not argued that they render the corresponding entries insufficient evidence of Chain
Bridge’s incurred fees. Should the Court deem it appropriate, Chain Bridge would be pleased to
submit a fully unredacted version of Exhibit 1, within one business day, for in camera review.6
4 Exhibit 1 pp.19 (two entries), 57 (two entries), 85.
5 Exhibit 1 pp.16, 17, 18, 20, 21 (two entries), 22, 42, 44, 45, 47 (four entries), 48.
6 Chain Bridge makes this request for in camera review because it was not clear to it that the December 1
Order authorized the submission of this limited material to the Court without service on JPMC. If in camera
review is not permitted, then Chain Bridge respectfully submits that its obligations under federal banking
laws, and its interest in withholding a limited amount of privileged information during JPMC’s appeal,
constrains Chain Bridge from filing and serving on JPMC fully unredacted versions of these invoices.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 211 Filed 12/06/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID#
5286
4
Dated: December 6, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Donald Burke
Gary A. Orseck (pro hac vice)
Matthew M. Madden (pro hac vice)
Donald Burke (VA Bar No. 76550)
ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT,
ORSECK & UNTEREINER LLP
2000 K Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (202) 775-4500
Fax: (202) 775-4510
dburke@robbinsrussell.com
Counsel for Third-Party Plaintiff
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 211 Filed 12/06/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID#
5287
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 6, 2021, I will electronically file the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing to the
following:
Meredith K. Loretta
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 663-6981
Email: meredith.loretta@wilmerhale.com
Counsel for Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Peter H. White, Esq.
SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
901 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-729-7476
peter.white@srz.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical LLC
/s/ Donald Burke
Donald Burke (VA Bar No. 76550)
ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT,
ORSECK & UNTEREINER LLP
2000 K Street, N.W., 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: (202) 775-4500
Fax: (202) 775-4510
dburke@robbinsrussell.com
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document 211 Filed 12/06/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID#
5288