Order — Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., et al. (E.D. Va., Dkt. 210, December 1, 2021)

Summary

This is an Order of December 1, 2021 by Leonie M. Brinkema in Case 1:20-cv-658, Document 210, on motions to seal filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chain Bridge Bank. The Court states it erroneously granted the earlier motion that let Chain Bridge file all its attorney fee invoices under seal, and says sealing them in their entirety is not the practice of this Court. It vacates the October 29, 2021 Order and directs Chain Bridge to publicly file the invoices by December 6, 2021, saying any redacted entry will not be considered. The pending motions to seal are put "IN ABEYANCE".

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 Document 210 Filed 12/01/21 Page 1 of 3 PagelD#
5281

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
BLUE FLAME MEDICAL LLC,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants. 1:20-cv-658 (LMB/IDD)

CHAIN BRIDGE BANK, N.A.,
Third Party Plaintiff,
V.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Third Party Defendant.

ORDER
Before the Court are third-party defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“JPMorgan”)
Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 199], and Chain Bridge Bank, N.A.’s (“Chain Bridge”) Motion to Seal
[Dkt. No. 205]. Because the Court erroneously granted Chain Bridge’s previous Motion to Seal
[Dkt. No. 187, 197], which permitted Chain Bridge to file under seal all the invoices supporting
its Motion to Establish Indemnified Fees and Expenses, the pending motions will be held in
abeyance and the October 29, 2021 Order which permitted Chain Bridge to file the invoices

under seal will be vacated.
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Pocument 2 Filed 12/01/21 Page 2 of 3 PagelD#
On October 28, 2021, Chain Bridge filed a Motion to Establish the Amount of

Indemnified Fees and Expenses. In support of its motion, Chain Bridge attached its attorney fee
invoices, all of which it moved to file under seal. On October 29, 2021, the Court granted that
Motion [Dkt. Nos. 187, 197]. The Court was under the impression that it was sealing a limited
number of attorney fee invoices which contained sensitive or privileged material, but in fact, it
had sealed all of the invoices. See [Dkt. Nos. 190-193]. Because sealing court documents from

the public record is considered a “drastic” judicial decision, it requires the Court to weigh the
public’s right to inspect public records and documents against the requesting party’s interest in

privacy. See Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Washington Post, 386 F.3d 567, 576 (4th Cir.

2004); Nixon v. Warner Comme’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). It is not the practice of this

Court to seal attorney fee invoices in their entirety, because this would inappropriately harm the
public’s right to inspect court documents. Accordingly, the Order dated October 29, 2021 was
entered in error.

Since erroneously granting Chain Bridge’s sealing motion, the Court has reviewed the
invoices and finds that neither privileged content nor attorney work product is revealed in
sufficient detail to prejudice Chain Bridge, given that any references to legal theories or
argument should already have been raised in this civil action. The vast majority of entries simply
describe the work for which Chain Bridge’s lawyers billed their client.

Further, even though Chain Bridge filed all its invoices under seal, several included
redacted entries. To the extent that the invoices have been redacted, the Court cannot determine
whether the redacted fee entries are related to this civil action, much less whether the fees
claimed are fair and appropriate. Only where redactions truly reveal sensitive, privileged, or

work product material is it proper to redact material, and if Chain Bridge wishes to claim fees for
Case 1:20-cv-00658-LMB-IDD Pocument 210 Filed 12/01/21 Page 3 of 3 PagelD#
those entries, the Court must be able to examine the redacted material. Accordingly, for any
entry which Chain Bridge believes it has a genuine basis to seek sealing, it must petition the
Court to file that entry under seal. Any entry which Chain Bridge continues to redact from the
Court’s review will not be included in any fee award.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Order granting Chain Bridge’s previous Motion to Seal [Dkt. No.
197] be and is VACATED; and it is further

ORDERED that by December 6, 2021, Chain Bridge publicly file the attorney fee
invoices [Dkt. Nos. 190-193] supporting its fee petition. If any entry is redacted, that entry will
not be considered by the Court unless an unredacted entry is filed under seal for the Court’s
review. If the Court finds that redaction was not justified, the entry will not be considered; and it
is further

ORDERED that the parties’ pending motions to seal [Dkt. Nos. 199, 205] be and are
HELD IN ABEYANCE until the invoices are filed in the public record as described above. Once
the invoices are publicly filed, the pending motions to seal may be moot.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this Order to counsel of record.

Leonie M. Brinkema
United States District Judge

Entered this | day of December, 2021.

Alexandria, Virginia


File and source

File

210.pdf

Size

147,848 bytes

SHA-256

c65af90c113713a927d19a14bf0f15e21c08f11ee44e51675cc6fdc0e7ee25eb

Our copy

210.pdf

Original

No public link identified.