Order Granting Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.'s Motion to File Under Seal (E.D. Va., Dkt. 197, October 29, 2021)

Summary

This is an Order granting Third-Party Plaintiff Chain Bridge Bank's motion to file under seal, Document 197, filed 10/29/21 in Case 1:20-cv-00658 (Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division). The motion concerned redacted billing records of Chain Bridge's counsel and experts, attached to the Declaration of Donald Burke supporting a motion on the amount of indemnified fees and expenses from JPMorgan Chase Bank. The Court finds the requirements for sealing are met, noting Chain Bridge did not redact hours, rates or fees and gave JPMC full copies. It orders Exhibits 1-4 to the Declaration maintained permanently under seal.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document197_ Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 3 PagelD#
5143

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

Vv.

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.

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’s)
Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-4 to the Declaration of Donald Burke In Support Of Third-Party
Plaintiff's Motion To Establish The Amount Of Indemnified Fees And Expenses To Be Awarded
From Third-Party Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. In the Motion to Seal, Chain Bridge
requests leave to file redacted versions of these exhibits, which are Chain Bridge’s billing records
from its (1) litigation counsel, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP (Robbins
Russell), (2) insurance-coverage counsel, Weisbrod Matteis & Copley PLLC, (3) expert consulting

firm, Analysis Group, and (4) expert Charles Grice’s separate consulting firm, CRI Compliance.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document197 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD#
5144

The Court has considered Chain Bridge’s Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Seal,
which explains that certain entries in these billing records describe the nature of the work
performed by attorneys and experts in ways that reflect confidential information that is protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. The Memorandum
further explains that public disclosure of this information would be particularly damaging to Chain
Bridge because Plaintiff Blue Flame Medical LLC (Blue Flame)—which is not a party to this third-
party action over indemnification—has noticed an appeal from the judgment against it in this case,
and information in these billing records describes Chain Bridge’s litigation approach, research
topics, and strategy regarding Blue Flame’s claims.

There is a “presumption” favoring public access to court records and documents. Ashcraft
v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000). “Accordingly, before 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.” Jd.

The Court finds that all requirements for sealing are satisfied here. The public received
notice of the request when Chain Bridge filed the Motion to Seal and accompanying Notice of
Motion to Seal on October 28, 2021. See L. Civ. R. 5(C); see also, e.g., EI. 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 exhibits in their entirety, but instead seek the “less
drastic alternative” of filing the exhibits 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).
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Document197_ Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 3 PagelD#
- ~~ 5145 _y

Lastly, the Court finds that 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 (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). Chain Bridge has not redacted any information on the number of attorney or
expert hours, their rates, or the fees incurred for which Chain Bridge seeks indemnification. Chain
Bridge has also provided full copies of the four exhibits to JPMC, so JPMC will be provided “an
opportunity to review these records and make any objections to the reasonableness of the claimed
fees.” Selee Corp. v. McDanel Advanced Ceramic Techs., LLC, No. 1:15-CV-00129-MR, 2016
WL 9686076, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 2016).

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Seal. The Court ORDERS that
Exhibits 1-4 to the Declaration of Donald Burke shall be maintained permanently under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 29 day of Ocbobon 2021.

ane

Leonie M. Brinkeina
United States Dis.zict Iudge


File and source

File

197.pdf

Size

170,292 bytes

SHA-256

18e878fb5b89d95c58b5e555701db5bf3bc2a5fe5f54616f65e82bddbbd0e1ac

Our copy

197.pdf

Original

No public link identified.