Download - Satyam Decision.pdf
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
1/27
15374cv
Bernsteinv.BernsteinLitowitzBerger&GrossmannLLP,etal.
1
In the2
United States Court of Appeals3
For the Second Circuit4________5
6
AUGUSTTERM,20157
8
SUBMITTED:OCTOBER23,20159
DECIDED:FEBRUARY24,201610
11
No.150374cv12
13
BRUCEBERNSTEIN,14
Plaintiff,15
16
v.17
18
BERNSTEINLITOWITZBERGER&GROSSMANNLLP,MAXBERGER,19
STEVEN
SINGER,
SALVATORE
GRAZIANO,
EDWARD
GROSSMANN
AND20
GERALDSILK,21
DefendantsAppellants.*22
________23
24
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt25
fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork.26
No.14Civ.6867(VEC)ValerieE.Caproni,Judge.27
________28
29
Before: KEARSE,WALKER,andCABRANES,CircuitJudges.30
________31
* TheClerkofCourt isrespectfullydirected toamend thecaption to
conformtotheabove.
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page1 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
2/27
2 No.15374cv
AttorneyBruceBernsteinsuedhisformerlawfirm,Bernstein1
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G), and five of its2
partners,allegingthathehadbeenforcedtoresignafterblowingthe3
whistleonwhathe considered tobe the firmsunethical litigation4
conduct. Thefirmarguedthattherelevantfactswereconfidential5
client information that could notbe disclosedby Bernstein in a6
complaintraisingclaimsof, interalia,retaliatorybreachofcontract.7
Bernstein sought and obtained permission from theUnited States8
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kevin P.9
Castel, Judge) to file a complaint under seal, with the sealing to10
automatically expire fourteen days after service of process on11
defendants,unless extendedby the court. Thirteendays after the12
complaint was filed, the parties settled the suit on confidential13
terms. Thepartiesthensoughtanorderdirectingtheclerkofcourt14
toclosethefilewhileleavingitpermanentlysealed.15
TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt for theSouthernDistrictof16
NewYork (Valerie E.Caproni,Judge) denied the parties request.17
The district court concluded that the complaint is a judicial18
documentsubjecttoapresumptionofpublicaccessundertheFirst19
Amendmentandthecommonlaw. Thedistrictcourtalsoheldthat20
keeping the complaint secret was not necessary to protect21
confidential client communications. Finally, applying the22
balancing test for thecommonlaw rightofaccess, thecourt found23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page2 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
3/27
3 No.15374cv
that the weak private interests at stake did not rebut the1
presumption of access, which is supportedby substantial public2
interests. WeagreewiththedistrictcourtandAFFIRM.3
________4
5
GregoryP.Joseph,PamelaJarvis, andCourtney6
A. Solomon, on the brief,JosephHageAaronson7
LLC,NewYork,NY,forDefendantsAppellants.8
________9
10
JOHN
M.
WALKER,
JR.,
Circuit
Judge:11
AttorneyBruceBernsteinsuedhisformerlawfirm,Bernstein12
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G), and five of its13
partners,allegingthathehadbeenforcedtoresignafterblowingthe14
whistleonwhathe considered tobe the firmsunethical litigation15
conduct. Thefirmarguedthattherelevantfactswereconfidential16
client information that could notbe disclosedby Bernstein in a17
complaintraisingclaimsof, interalia,retaliatorybreachofcontract.18
Bernstein sought and obtained permission from theUnited States19
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kevin P.20
Castel, Judge) to file a complaint under seal, with the sealing to21
automaticallyexpire
fourteen
days
after
service
of
process
on
22
defendants,unless extendedby the court. Thirteendays after the23
complaint was filed, the parties settled the suit on confidential24
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page3 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
4/27
4 No.15374cv
terms. Thepartiesthensoughtanorderdirectingtheclerkofcourt1
toclosethefilewhileleavingitpermanentlysealed.2
TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt for theSouthernDistrictof3
NewYork (Valerie E.Caproni,Judge) denied the parties request.4
The court concluded that the complaint is a judicial document5
subject to a presumption of public access under the First6
Amendmentandthecommonlaw. Thedistrictcourtalsoheldthat7
keeping the complaint secret was not necessary to protect8
confidential client communications. Finally, applying the9
balancing test for thecommonlaw rightofaccess, thecourt found10
that the weak private interests at stake did not rebut the11
presumption of access, which is supportedby substantial public12
interests. WeagreewiththedistrictcourtandAFFIRM.13
BACKGROUND14
Werecitethefactsallegedinthecomplaintthatarenecessary15
to understand the substantial public interest in the complaints16
disclosure, as the complaint in a case discloses the nature of the17
proceeding. We emphasize, however, that at this point in the18
proceedingthefactsallegedareexactlythatsimplyallegations,the19
truthofwhichhasnotbeenproven.20
BernsteinbecameofcounselwithBLB&Gin2008. Atthefirm,21
he worked on In re Satyam Computer Services, Ltd., Securities22
Litigation, a class action which arose from a massive financial23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page4 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
5/27
5 No.15374cv
scandalinvolving...SatyamComputerServices,Ltd.(Satyam),one1
of Indias largest information technology and outsourcing2
companies. 609 F.Supp.2d 1375, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2009). Suits3
brought by various investors against Satyam and others were4
consolidated in the SouthernDistrict ofNewYorkby theJudicial5
PanelonMultidistrictLitigation. Id. InMay2009, theMississippi6
PublicEmployeesRetirementSystem(MPERS)wasappointedas7
oneof four leadplaintiffs in thecase. In reSatyamComput.Servs.,8
Ltd.,Sec.
Litig.,1:09md02027BSJ[Doc.No.8](May12,2009). The9
Office of the Mississippi Attorney General (AGs Office) was10
insidecounselforMPERS. BLB&Gwasoutsidecounsel.11
In September 2010, BLB&G partner Steven Singer informed12
Bernstein that a solo practitioner based in Jackson, Mississippi,13
Vaterria Martin, would act as local counsel and occasionally14
checkonthestatusofthecaseforMPERS,eventhoughBLB&Gwas15
alreadyproviding this informationdirectly to theAGsOffice. In16
December2010,theleadplaintiffsintheSatyamclassactionreached17
anagreementinprincipletosettlewithSatyamfor$125million. On18
February 16, 2011, Satyam and the lead plaintiffs executed a19
stipulationsettingforththetermsoftheagreement.120
1 On March 8, 2011, the lead plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle to settle with Satyams codefendantsvarious
PricewaterhouseCoopers entities thatwere Satyams auditorsfor $25.5
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page5 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
6/27
6 No.15374cv
On March 1, 2011after the agreement in principle with1
Satyamhadbeenreachedand thestipulationhadbeenexecuted2
another BLB&G partner, Max Berger, assigned two unnecessary3
legal research projects to Martin. Bernstein protested the4
assignment,but his concernswere dismissed,with Singer saying,5
Do you everwant us toworkwithMississippi again? Martin6
ultimately produced an eighteenpagememorandum onApril 26,7
2011, severalweeksafter the casewas settled inprinciple. Singer8
andBergeragreedwithBernsteinthatthememorandumaddressed9
thewrongpleading,containednomeaningfulanalysis,andwas10
ridiculous. Martinreportedatotalof207hoursworkonthecase,11
primarilyspentproducingtheuselessmemorandum.12
After the settlement became final, Bernstein learned from13
BLB&Gs comptroller that the firmhadpaidMartin$112,500 from14
theproceedsoftheSatyamclasssettlement. BLB&Gdidnotdisclose15
the payment to the court in its August 1, 2011 fee petition.216
million. The district court entered amended preliminary settlement
approval orders on March 21, 2011 and May 12, 2011. In re Satyam
Comput.Servs.,Ltd.,Sec.Litig.,1:09md02027BSJ [Docs.No.259&319].
ThefinaljudgmentandorderastoSatyamissuedonSeptember13,2011.
Id.[Doc.No.363].2 Formerly,the localcivilrulesoftheSouthernDistrictofNewYork
requiredthatallfeeapplicants inderivativeandclassactionsdiscloseto
the court any fee sharing agreements with anyone. By a rule
amendmenteffectiveJuly11,2011threeweeksbeforeBLB&Gsubmitted
its fee petitionthe automaticdisclosure provision was repealed as to
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page6 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
7/27
7 No.15374cv
Concerned with the ethical and legal implications of the1
arrangement, Bernstein inquired further. He learned thatMartin2
hadbeenadmittedtothebaronlyfiveyearsbeforeSatyamwasfiled,3
andwasmarried toDeshunT.Martin,a specialassistantattorney4
generalintheAGsOffice.5
Bernsteinallegedlyraisedhisethicalconcernsagaininseveral6
contentiousmeetingswithpartners. ThefirmsleadershipBerger,7
SalvatoreGraziano,andEdwardGrossmanndismissedBernsteins8
misgivings. GrazianoandBergerinformedBernsteinthattherewas9
localpressureontheMississippiAGtouselocalfirms,toldhim10
you need to drop this, andmade a veiled threat to blackball11
Bernsteinifhebecameawhistleblower.12
InDecember2011,BernsteinreportedhisconcernstotheU.S.13
Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York. Soon14
afterward,Bernsteinbecame concernedaboutBLB&Gs conduct in15
anotherclassaction,inwhichthefirmallocatedworktoMississippi16
firmsthatlackedrelevantexperience.17
classactions. SeeS.D.N.Y.LocalCivilRule23.1(repealedeffectiveJuly11,
2011);S.D.N.Y.LocalCivilRule23.1.1. AccordingtotheJointCommittee
on Local Rules note, the committee recommended that the automatic
disclosure rule as applied to class actions be deleted because it is
redundant [with] ... Fed.R.Civ.P.23(h). FederalRule23(h), inturn,
doesnotmandateautomaticdisclosureofallfeesharingarrangementsin
classactions.
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page7 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
8/27
8 No.15374cv
Bernsteinclaimsthattheissuetookitstollonhisrelationship1
with the firms leadership. InOctober2012,afterrealizingthathis2
terminationwas inevitable, he resigned from the firm. Bernstein3
alleges that after his departure, BLB&G interfered with his4
relationshipwitha leadplaintiff inone case,andBLB&Gpartners5
made various threats toward himbefore attempting to buy [his]6
silencebyofferinghim compensation froma future settlement in7
an unrelated case on the condition that he keep the Mississippi8
counselarrangementsecret. Bernsteindeclined.9
At two mediation sessions heldbefore Bernstein filed suit,10
BLB&G expressed itsbelief thatBernsteins claimswerebased on11
facts learned in the course of representation of a client and thus12
couldnotbedisclosedunder theNewYorkRules ofProfessional13
Conduct. Bernstein, by contrast, maintained that the facts14
underlyinghisclaimswereneitherprivilegednorconfidentialand15
thathewasfreetodisclosethemincourtfilings.16
Notwithstanding Bernsteins position that he was free to17
disclosethe factsat issue,Bernstein filedamotionwith thedistrict18
courtpriortofilingthecomplaintrequestingoutofanabundance19
ofcautiontheentryofanordersealingallmaterialsfiledinthis20
caseuntiltheCourtresolvestheseissuesofconfidentiality.21
JudgeKevinCastel, sitting inPart I,granted themotion on22
July24,2014,before thesuitwas filed. Noting thatit isdoubtful23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page8 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
9/27
9 No.15374cv
thatsealingisappropriate,thedistrictcourtneverthelessoutofan1
abundance of caution ordered that [t]he action may be filed2
under sealand thesealingshall expirewithin14daysofserviceof3
process on defendants unless extendedby order of thejudge to4
whomthecaseisassigned.5
OnAugust22,2014,Bernstein filedthecomplaintunderseal6
againstBLB&GandfiveindividualBLB&Gpartners:Berger,Singer,7
Graziano,Grossmann, andGerald Silk. He alleged, in substance,8
thatdefendants(1)engagedinakickbackschemeinviolationofthe9
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.10
1962(c),1964(c),and(2)breachedtheircontractwithBernsteinin11
retaliationforreportinganethicalbreach.12
After filing the sealed complaint, theparties returned to the13
negotiating table. AsJudgeCaproni, towhom the casehadbeen14
assigned,wrote:Armednowwiththetickingtimebombprovided15
by the Courts order, Bernstein was able to accomplish what he16
could not without the assistance of a filing in this Court: he17
negotiated a mutually acceptable settlement. The settlement18
agreement includes a provision that voids the settlement if [the]19
actionisunsealedorotherwisebecomespublic.20
On September 4, 2014one day short of the automatic21
unsealingprovidedforbythecourtsJuly24orderBernsteinfiled22
anoticeofdismissalpursuanttothesettlement. Thefollowingday,23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page9 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
10/27
10 No.15374cv
thepartiesjointlymovedforanorderdirectingtheclerkofcourtto1
close the file without ordering the file unsealed. The parties2
apparentlybelievedthatobtainingastipulateddismissalbeforethe3
expirationof the sealingorderwouldensure that the [c]omplaint4
wouldneverseethelightofday.5
OnJanuary12,2015,followingahearingandmultiplerounds6
ofbriefing, the district court issued its opinion and order. After7
determining that ithadjurisdiction, thedistrictcourtheld that the8
complaintisajudicialdocumentsubjecttoapresumptionofpublic9
accessunderboththeFirstAmendmentandthecommonlaw. Next,10
the district court held that the complaint does not contain11
confidential client communications or information and therefore12
publicaccesstothecomplaintwouldnotplausiblyimplicatevalues13
higher thanFirstAmendmentvalues. Finally, thedistrict court14
held thateven if theFirstAmendmentpresumptiondidnotapply,15
the commonlaw presumption of access to judicial documents16
wouldrequirethecomplainttobepublicbecausetheconsiderable17
public interest indisclosureoutweighstheweakprivate interests18
favoringsecrecy. accordingly, thedistrictcourtdenied theparties19
requesttocontinuethesealingorderanddirectedtheclerkofcourt20
tounsealthecasethirtydaysfromtheissuanceofitsorder,withthe21
thirtydayperiodtobetolledduringthependencyofanyappeal.22
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page10 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
11/27
11 No.15374cv
Defendants timelyappealed. Bernsteinhasnot filedabrief.1
Although he continues to contest defendants claim that the2
complaint contains confidential client information, he supports3
BLB&Gsposition that the case should remain sealed so as not to4
riskunwindingthesettlement.5
DISCUSSION6
Thesoleissueiswhetherthedistrictcourtcorrectlydeniedthe7
partiesrequesttocontinuethesealingorder. Inreviewingadistrict8
courts order to seal or unseal, we examine the courts factual9
findings for clear error, its legal determinations de novo, and its10
ultimatedecisiontosealorunsealforabuseofdiscretion. SeeUnited11
Statesv.Doe,63F.3d121,125(2dCir.1995);UnitedStatesv.Amodeo,12
44F.3d141,146(2dCir.1995)(AmodeoI).13
I. Pleadingsasjudicialrecords.14
Wefirstconsiderwhetheracomplaint isajudicialdocument15
subject to a presumption of access and easily conclude that a16
complaint issuchadocument. Ajudicialdocumentorjudicial17
record is a filed item that is relevant to the performance of the18
judicial function and useful in the judicial process. Lugosch v.19
PyramidCo.
of
Onondaga, 435F.3d 110, 119 (2dCir. 2006) (internal20
quotation marks omitted). Such documents are presumptively21
publicsothatthefederalcourtshaveameasureofaccountability22
andsothatthepublicmayhaveconfidenceintheadministrationof23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page11 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
12/27
12 No.15374cv
justice. UnitedStatesv.Amodeo,71F.3d1044,1048 (2dCir.1995)1
(AmodeoII). Indeterminingwhetheradocumentisajudicialrecord,2
weevaluatetherelevanceofthedocumentsspecificcontentstothe3
nature of theproceeding and thedegree towhich access to the4
[document]wouldmateriallyassistthepublicinunderstandingthe5
issues before the ... court, and in evaluating the fairness and6
integrityofthecourtsproceedings. NewsdayLLCv.Cty.ofNassau,7
730F.3d156,16667(2dCir.2013).38
Pleadingsplainlymeet theNewsday test for reasons that are9
readily apparent. A complaint, which initiates judicial10
proceedings,isthecornerstoneofeverycase,theveryarchitectureof11
the lawsuit,andaccesstothecomplaintisalmostalwaysnecessary12
ifthepublicistounderstandacourtsdecision. Fed.TradeCommn13
v.AbbVieProds.LLC,713F.3d54,62(11thCir.2013). Moreover, in14
commencinganactionandthusinvokingthecourtsjurisdiction,the15
parties substantive legal rights and duties maybe affected. For16
example, a large number of lawsuits ... are disposed of at the17
motiontodismiss stage, where a court determines solely on the18
3 Whilethemerefilingofapaperordocumentwiththecourtis
insufficienttorenderthatpaperajudicialdocumentsubjecttotherightof
publicaccess,Lugosch,435F.3dat119(internalquotationmarksomitted),
adocumentisjudicialnotonlyifthejudgeactuallyrelieduponit,butalso
ifthejudgeshouldhaveconsideredorreliedupon[it],butdidnot. Id.at
123 (internal quotation marks omitted). Such documents are just as
deserving of disclosure as those that actually entered into thejudges
decision. Id.(internalquotationmarksomitted).
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page12 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
13/27
13 No.15374cv
basis of the complaint whether the plaintiff has made sufficient1
factualallegations to statea claim. Id. The filingofa complaint2
triggers other legal consequences aswell. E.g.,Kronisch v.United3
States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998) (obligation to preserve4
evidence);Mattel,Inc.v.LouisMarx&Co.,353F.2d421,424(2dCir.5
1965) (when duplicative actions are commenced, the firstfiled6
complaint normally determines the district of adjudication). For7
these reasons, the modern trend in federal cases is to classify8
pleadings in civil litigation (other than discovery motions and9
accompanyingexhibits)asjudicialrecords. IDTCorp.v.eBay,70910
F.3d 1220, 1223 (8th Cir. 2013); accord AbbVie, 713 F.3d at 626311
(collectingcases);UnitedStatesv.Martin,746F.2d964,968 (3dCir.12
1984).13
Thefactthatasuitisultimatelysettledwithoutajudgmenton14
themeritsdoesnotimpairthejudicialrecordstatusofpleadings.15
It is true that settlement of a case precludes the judicial16
determinationof thepleadingsveracityand legalsufficiency. But17
attorneysandothers submittingpleadingsareunderanobligation18
toensure,whensubmittingpleadings,thatthefactualcontentions19
[made]haveevidentiarysupportor,ifspecificallysoidentified,will20
likelyhave evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for21
further investigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3).22
Inanyevent,thefactoffilingacomplaint,whateveritsveracity,isa23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page13 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
14/27
14 No.15374cv
significant matter of record. Even in the settlement context, the1
inspection of pleadings allows the public [to] discern the2
prevalence of certain types of cases, the nature of the parties to3
particularkindsofactions,informationaboutthesettlementratesin4
differentareasoflaw,andthetypesofmaterialsthatarelikelytobe5
sealed. HartfordCourantCo.v.Pellegrino,380F.3d83,96 (2dCir.6
2004). Thus,pleadingsareconsideredjudicialrecordsevenwhen7
thecaseispendingbeforejudgmentorresolvedbysettlement. IDT8
Corp.,709F.3dat1223(citationsomitted);accordStonev.
Univ.
of
Md.
9
Med.Sys.Corp., 855F.2d 178, 180n.* (4thCir. 1988);LaurieDor,10
SecrecybyConsent:TheUseandLimitsofConfidentialityinthePursuit11
ofSettlement,74NOTREDAMEL.REV.283,378(1999).12
We thereforehold thatpleadingseven insettledcasesare13
judicialrecordssubjecttoapresumptionofpublicaccess.14
II. Presumptiverightofaccesstothecomplaint.15
A[f]indingthatadocumentisajudicialdocumenttriggers16
a presumption of public access, and requires a court to make17
specific,rigorousfindingsbeforesealingthedocumentorotherwise18
denying public access. Newsday, 730 F.3d at 167 n.15. The19
presumption of access to judicial records is secured by two20
independent sources: the FirstAmendment and the common law.21
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121. The analysis with respect to each is22
somewhatdifferent.23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page14 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
15/27
15 No.15374cv
A.
TheFirstAmendmentpresumptiverightofaccess.1
Defendants argue that the First Amendment presumption2
doesnotapplyhere. Wedisagree.3
We have articulated two different approaches for4
determiningwhether thepublicand thepressshouldreceiveFirst5
Amendment protection in their attempts to access certainjudicial6
documents. Id.at120(internalquotationmarksomitted). Thefirst7
approach considers experience and logic: that is, whether the8
documents have historicallybeen open to the press and general9
publicandwhetherpublicaccessplaysasignificantpositiverolein10
the functioningof theparticularprocess inquestion. Id. (internal11
quotation marks omitted). The second approach considers the12
extent towhich thejudicial documents are derived from or are a13
necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the relevant14
proceedings. Id.(alterationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted).15
Acomplaintespecially inacase that isultimatelysettled16
is best evaluated under the experience and logic approach,17
because the alternative approach is relevant only after court18
proceedingshave commenced. Experienceand logicboth support19
accesshere. Complaintshavehistoricallybeenpublicly accessible20
bydefault,evenwhen theycontainarguablysensitive information.21
Cf.SealedPlaintiff v.SealedDefendant, 537F.3d 185, 18990 (2dCir.22
2008). Defendants acknowledge that since the adoption of the23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page15 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
16/27
16 No.15374cv
FederalRulesofCivilProcedurein1938,federallawsuitshavebeen1
commencedby the filingof the complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P.3. But2
they argue that since many federal courts did not require3
complaints tobe filed unless and untiljudicial intervention was4
soughtbefore1938,thereisnostronghistoricaltraditionofpublic5
accesstocomplaints. Thisargumentisunpersuasive. Itignoresthe6
historyofthelasteightdecadesundertheFederalRules. Moreover,7
the fact thatpre1938 lawmayhaveallowedactions to commence8
without the filing of a complaint says nothing aboutwhether the9
publicat that timehadaccess todocuments thatwerepermittedor10
requiredtobefiled.11
Logical considerations also support apresumption ofpublic12
access. Publicaccesstocomplaintsallowsthepublictounderstand13
the activity of the federal courts, enhances the court systems14
accountabilityand legitimacy,and informs thepublicofmattersof15
public concern. Conversely, a sealed complaint leaves the public16
unawarethataclaimhasbeenleveledandthatstatepowerhasbeen17
invokedand public resources spentin an effort to resolve the18
dispute. These considerations indicate that public access to the19
complaint and other pleadings has a significant positive role,20
Lugosch,435F.3dat120 (internalquotationmarksomitted), in the21
functioningofthejudicialprocess.22
23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page16 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
17/27
17 No.15374cv
B.
Thecommonlawpresumptionofaccess.1
The district court concluded that in addition to the First2
Amendmentpresumptionofaccess, the commonlawpresumption3
of access attached. Defendants contend that the commonlaw4
presumptionlacksweighthereand thatunsealing thecomplaint5
constitutedanabuseofdiscretion.6
Thecourtshavelongrecognizedthegeneralrighttoinspect7
andcopypublicrecordsanddocuments, includingjudicialrecords8
anddocuments. Nixonv.
Warner
Commcns,
Inc.,435U.S.589,5979
(1978) (footnote omitted). This right is said to predate the10
Constitution.AmodeoI,44F.3dat145.11
The right to inspect and copy judicial records is not12
absolute, however, and a court may exercise its supervisory13
powerover itsownrecordsand files todenyaccesswherecourt14
filesmighthavebecomeavehicle for improperpurposes. Nixon,15
435U.S.at598(internalquotationmarksomitted). Oncethecourt16
hasdeterminedthatthedocumentsarejudicialdocumentsandthat17
therefore a common law presumption of access attaches, it must18
determinetheweightofthatpresumption. Lugosch,435F.3dat119.19
Theweightofthepresumptionisafunctionof(1)theroleof20
thematerialatissueintheexerciseofArticleIIIjudicialpowerand21
(2)theresultantvalueofsuchinformationtothosemonitoringthe22
federal courts,balanced against competing considerations such23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page17 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
18/27
18 No.15374cv
astheprivacyinterestsofthoseresistingdisclosure. Lugosch,4351
F.3dat11920(internalquotationmarksomitted);seealsoAmodeoII,2
71F.3dat104951. Wetakeeachfactorinturn.3
Where a documents role in the performance ofArticle III4
duties is negligible ..., theweight of thepresumption is low.5
AmodeoII,71F.3dat1050. Conversely,wheredocumentsdirectly6
affectanadjudication,id.at1049,orareusedtodeterminelitigants7
substantive legal rights, thepresumption of access is at its zenith,8
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121, and thus can be overcome only by9
extraordinary circumstances,Amodeo II,71F.3dat1048 (internal10
quotationmarksomitted). The locusof the inquiry is, in essence,11
whether the document is presented to the court to invoke its12
powersoraffectitsdecisions. Id.at1050.13
Applying this standard, we have determined that a report14
submitted to a court in connection with a summaryjudgment15
motion isentitled toa strongpresumptionofaccess. Joyv.North,16
692F.2d880,894(2dCir.1982). Sincesuchadocumentisthebasis17
for theadjudication,only themostcompelling reasonscanjustify18
sealing. Id. Bycontrast,documentssuchasthosepassedbetween19
theparties indiscoveryoftenplaynorole in theperformanceof20
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page18 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
19/27
19 No.15374cv
Article III functions and so the presumption of access to these1
recordsislow.AmodeoII,71F.3dat1050.42
Under the twofactorLugoschapproach,weeasilydetermine3
that theweightof thepresumptionhere isstrong. Pleadings,such4
as thecomplainthere,arehighlyrelevant to theexerciseofArticle5
IIIjudicialpower. Ofalltherecordsthatmaycomebeforeajudge,a6
complaintisamongthemostlikelytoaffectjudicialproceedings. It7
is the complaint that invokes the powers of the court, states the8
causesofaction,andpraysforrelief. Wehavealreadydiscussedthe9
secondbasissupportingtheweightofthepresumption:theutilityof10
thecomplainttothosewhomonitortheworkofthefederalcourts.11
Wenowmove to the cruxof theweightofthepresumption12
analysis: balancing the value of public disclosure and13
countervailing factors such as (i)the danger of impairing law14
enforcement orjudicial efficiency and (ii)the privacy interests of15
thoseresistingdisclosure. Id.;seealsoAmodeoI,44F.3dat14647.16
In striking thisbalance,we agreewith the district courts careful17
opinion that the value of public disclosure is substantial and the18
privacyinterestsatstakeareminimal.19
4 Cf.UnitedStatesv.GlensFallsNewspapers, Inc.,160F.3d853,857
(2dCir.1998)(settlementnegotiationsanddraftagreementsdonotcarry
a presumption of public accessbecause [t]hejudge cannot act upon
thesediscussionsordocumentsuntiltheyarefinal,andthejudgemaynot
beprivytoallofthem).
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page19 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
20/27
20 No.15374cv
As the district court noted, the complaint alleges that1
defendants,ascounselforastateemployeespensionfundthatwas2
aleadplaintiffinamajorsecuritiesclassaction,regularlyengagein3
akickbackschemewiththeMississippiAttorneyGeneralsOffice,a4
public entity whose constituents might otherwisebe in the dark5
aboutthearrangement. Whethertrueornot,thisallegationwould6
naturallybeoflegitimateinteresttothepublic(especiallythosewho7
contribute to and receive payments from MPERS) and to federal8
courtsinthefuture(e.g.,thoseconsideringwhethertonameBLB&G9
as lead class counsel or find MPERS to be an adequate class10
representativeinfutureclassactions). Moreover,thecomplaintalso11
didnot come within [the] courtspurview solely to [e]nsure [its]12
irrelevance. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (internal quotation marks13
omitted). Although the speedy settlementof the claimmeant that14
thecourtdidnotadjudicatethemeritsofthecase,thedistrictcourts15
routinely engage in adjudicatory duties even in connection with16
complaintsthataredismissedorsettled.17
In the circumstances here presented, the interests favoring18
secrecy,meanwhile,areweak. Thisisnotacaseinwhichdisclosure19
would reveal details of an ongoing investigation, pose a risk to20
witnesses, endanger national security, or reveal trade secrets. See21
AmodeoI,44F.3dat147. Moreover,aswewillshow,thecasedoes22
not implicate the duty to protect either privileged attorneyclient23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page20 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
21/27
21 No.15374cv
materialorconfidentialclientinformation. Oncetheserationalesfall1
away,onlyinsubstantialargumentsremain.2
Onappeal,defendantsspendmuchoftheirbriefarguingthat3
thecomplaintisunreliableandcontestingthetruthoftheallegations4
inthecomplaint. Theyarguethatunsealingthecomplaintassumes5
the truthof theallegationswithin it. Butunsealingdoesnosuch6
thing. Asthedistrictcourtnoted:7
Complaints canand frequently do8
contain allegations that range from9
exaggerated towholly fabricated. That is10
the nature of judicial proceedingsnot11
everything alleged by one party can or12
shouldbetakenasground truth. Still, the13
pleadings can and do properly frame the14
proceeding and provide outerboundaries15
ontheclaimsadvanced...andtheredress16
sought.17
18
(Internal citation omitted). Following defendants logic to its19
conclusion,moreover,wouldcreateanuntenableresultthesealing20
ofall complaints inactions inwhich theplaintiffdoesnotprevail,21
andallindictmentsinacriminalprosecutioninwhichthedefendant22
isacquitted.23
In sum, the district court engaged in a thoughtful and24
extendedanalysisof the competing interestsat stake. Thedistrict25
court concluded that (1)theweight of the presumption of public26
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page21 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
22/27
22 No.15374cv
accessaccordedtothecomplaintwashighbecause(a)thedocument1
washighlyrelevanttotheexerciseofArticleIIIjudicialpowerand2
(b)thepublicinterestindisclosurewassubstantial,whiletheprivate3
interests in secrecy areweak; and (2)BLB&G did not come forth4
withasufficientrationaletorebutthisstrongpresumptionofaccess.5
These conclusionswereamply supported,and there isnobasis to6
disturbthem.7
III. Sealingofthecomplaintisnotjustifiedinorderto8
protectconfidential
client
information.9
Onappeal,BLB&Grenewsitsargumentthataneedtoprotect10
confidential client information justifies or requires continued11
sealingofthecomplaint. Werejectthisclaim.12
After Bernstein left BLB&G, George W. Nevillea special13
assistantattorneygeneral inthecivil litigationdivisionoftheAGs14
OfficeexchangedseveralletterswithBernsteinsattorney. Inthese15
letters,NevilleorderedBernsteintokeeptheexistenceofthealleged16
kickback scheme private, writing: As counsel for the State of17
Mississippi ... and onbehalf of the State of Mississippi and its18
agency MPERS, I am directing [Bernstein] not to disclose any19
confidentialinformationhelearnedascounseltoMississippiandits20
agencyMPERS.21
Relying in part on these letters, defendants argued to the22
district court that all or virtually all of the facts alleged in the23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page22 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
23/27
23 No.15374cv
complaint are confidential under the New York Rules of1
ProfessionalConductandthuspermanentsealingisrequired.5 The2
districtcourtrejectedthisclaim. Onappeal,defendantsrenewthis3
confidentialityargument. Wereachthesameconclusionasdidthe4
districtcourt.5
Asa thresholdmatter,wenote thatdefendants rely in large6
part on the conclusions of their legalethics expert made in a7
declarationfiledinthedistrictcourt. Wedonotconsiderarguments8
based on this declaration because of our longstanding rule that9
experttestimonyon issuesofdomestic law isnottobeconsidered.10
SeeAmnestyIntlUSAv.Clapper,638F.3d118,128n.12(2dCir.2011)11
(holdingthatthecourtwasnotcompelledtoacceptalegalethics12
experts declaration regarding whether an ethical duty hadbeen13
triggered,becausethequestionwasforthecourttodecide),revdon14
othergrounds,133S.Ct.1138(2013);seealsoHyghv.Jacobs,961F.2d15
5 Rule 1.6 provides: A lawyer shall not knowingly reveal
confidentialinformation,...orusesuchinformationtothedisadvantage
ofaclientorfortheadvantageofthelawyerorathirdpersonunlessan
exceptionapplies.N.Y.R.ProflConduct1.6(a)(3). Onesuchexceptionis
whenpermittedorrequiredundertheseRulesor tocomplywithother
law or court order. Id. at 1.6(b)(6). Confidential information is
informationgainedduringor relating to the representationof a client,
whatever itssource, that is (a)protectedby theattorneyclientprivilege,
(b)likelytobeembarrassingordetrimentaltotheclientifdisclosed,or(c)
informationthattheclienthasrequestedbekeptconfidential. Id.at1.6.
Rule 1.9(c)provides that a lawyer shallnot use or reveal a former
clientsconfidentialinformation,exceptastheRulespermitorrequire.
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page23 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
24/27
24 No.15374cv
359,363(2dCir.1992);Marx&Co.v.TheDinersClub,Inc.,550F.2d1
505,50911(2dCir.1977).62
We now turn to the merits. To overcome the First3
Amendment right of access, the proponent of sealing must4
demonstrat[e] that closure is essential to preserve higher values5
andisnarrowlytailoredtoservethatinterest. InreN.Y.TimesCo.,6
828F.2d110,116(2dCir.1987) (internalquotationmarksomitted).7
Broad and general findings and conclusory assertion[s] are8
insufficient tojustifydeprivationofpublicaccess to the record, id.9
(internal quotation marks omitted); specific, ontherecord10
findingsarerequired. UnitedStatesv.ErieCnty.,763F.3d235,24311
(2dCir.2014)(internalquotationmarksomitted).12
Here,defendantsargue thatprotectionofconfidentialclient13
communicationisahighervalue. Thisassertionraisesthequestion14
ofwhetheranyconfidentialclientinformationisactuallyimplicated15
inthiscase. Puttingthatasideforamoment,however,theassertion16
itselfisquestionable. Wehaveimpliedbutneverexpresslyheld17
that protection of the attorneyclient privilege is a higher value18
under the First Amendment that may rebut the presumption of19
access. E.g., id.; Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125. Defendants go further,20
6 To the extent that expert interpretations of the ethical rules are
useful,theyarebetterpresentedinanamicusbrieforthepartiescitations
totreatises,ratherthanadeclarationoraffidavit.
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page24 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
25/27
25 No.15374cv
however, arguing that the protection of confidential client1
information isahighervaluesupersedingtheFirstAmendment2
rightofaccessandshouldhaveequalstatustotheattorneyclient3
privilege.4
The attorneyclientprivilege and theduty topreserve client5
confidencesand secretsarenot coextensive,however. Doev.A6
Corp.,330F.Supp.1352,1355(S.D.N.Y.1971),adoptedsubnom.Hallv.7
A. Corp., 453 F.2d 1375, 1376 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam). The8
broaderethicaldutytopreserveaclientsconfidences ...[,]unlike9
the evidentiary privilege, exists without regard to the nature or10
sourceof informationor the fact thatothersshare theknowledge.11
Brennans, Inc. v.BrennansRestaurants, Inc., 590 F.2d 168, 172 (5th12
Cir.1979)(internalquotationmarksomitted). Wesharethedistrict13
courtsskepticismofBLB&Gsclaimthatthisbroaderethicalduty14
shouldbetreatedidenticallyto...thenarrowerandmorevenerable15
attorneyclientprivilege.16
Inany event, even ifwewere toacceptdefendantshigher17
valueargument,thecomplaintheredoesnotcontainconfidential18
clientinformation.19
First, the complaint does not include information that is20
likelytobeembarrassingordetrimentaltotheclientifdisclosed.21
N.Y. R. Profl Conduct 1.6. Of course, the information may be22
seriouslyembarrassingtocounsel(BLB&GandtheAGsOffice),but23
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page25 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
26/27
26 No.15374cv
not to the client,MPERS. Indeed, it is counterintuitive to suggest1
thatMPERSwassomehowcomplicitinanallegedkickbackscheme2
thatcaused it topay legal fees forunnecessarywork. Ifanything,3
MPERSwouldappeartobenefitfromdisclosure;theworstthatcan4
be saidabout it is that itwasunlucky in its choiceof counsel. In5
sum, BLB&Gs claim about possible harm to MPERS is a mere6
nakedconclusorystatementthatpublication...willinjureit. Joy,7
692F.2dat894. Suchastatementfallswoefullyshortofthekindof8
showingwhichraisesevenanarguableissueastowhetheritmaybe9
keptunderseal. Id.10
Moreover, the fact of representation is generally neither11
privilegednorconfidential. SeeInreGrandJurySubpoenas,803F.2d12
493, 496 (9th Cir. 1986). The complaints allegation that BLB&G13
routinely assigns work to unqualified local counsel at the AGs14
Offices direction relates to a business practice, not to a client15
confidence.16
Finally,as thedistrictcourtnoted,[t]herequest tokeep the17
allegedkickback scheme confidentialwasmadeby thememberof18
the Attorney Generals Office whose conduct is discussed in the19
Complaint. Insofarasthisrequest(andperhapseventheunderlying20
scheme)wasadverse to the interestsofMPERS, for thepurposeof21
applying the ethical rule, the Court does not presume that the22
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page26 of 27
-
7/26/2019 Satyam Decision.pdf
27/27
27 No.15374cv
attorneys request for confidentiality signifies the clients desire1
(citationomitted).2
CONCLUSION3
Forthereasonsstatedabove,weAFFIRMthejudgmentofthe4
districtcourt.5
Case 15-374, Document 66-1, 02/24/2016, 1711688, Page27 of 27