Johnson v. Queen's Nail Art, Inc.

Opinion

For the reasons set forth in the letter motion, Defendants’ request for a portion of the January 17, 2025 Opinion & Order, (Doc. 32), to remain redacted on the public docket is GRANTED. SO ORDERED: 01/30/2025 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties fy f fo fz —_ Fa meet and confer, and no later than February 10, Le SLAY SORT v f yt 2024, submit a joint letter with their proposed HON. VERNON S. BRODERICK □ next steps in this action. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the letter motion at Doc. 33.

RE: HYELIN JOHNSON, et al. v. QUEEN’S NAIL ART, INC., et al. Case No.: 1:23-cv-00789-VSB DEFENDANTS’ POSITION REGARDING CONTINUED REDACTION Dear Judge Broderick, As Your Honor is aware, this office represents the defendants, Queen’s Nail Art, Inc. and Seung Ae Choi (“Defendants”), in the above-referenced matter. Defendants respectfully submit this letter in accordance with the Opinion and Order entered on January 17, 2025 (“Order”). Defendants respectfully request that the Court continue to redact and/or maintain the redaction of the Order (1.e., pages 10-11 of the Order) for the reasons set forth below. As set forth in footnote 7 of the Order (page 11), the currently redacted portion of the Order “discusses the details of a document submitted under seal and ex parte.” Such document, document 28, is a declaration of Defendant Seung Ae Choi (“Ms. Choi”) submitted in support of the motion to disqualify the plaintiffs counsel, Ryan Choi, Esq. That declaration was filed in confidence because Defendant believes — and continues to believe — that such information is not only privileged but may be prejudicial to Defendants in this action. Generally, and without disclosing the subject matter or the specific contents, the declaration is a recount of Ms. Choi’s conversation with Jia Choi, a paralegal at Plaintiffs counsel’s office. While this Court ultimately denied Defendants’ motion to disqualify, such information — the dialogue — may nevertheless shed light on Ms. Choi’s vulnerability in handling litigation matters and/or her settlement posture. At a minimum, Defendants believe it would, which is why they filed the motion to disqualify in the first instance. Moreover, the redacted portion of the Order contains information that Plaintiff's counsel — through Jia Choi — may or may not have in his possession. Although the Court at least questions the credibility of the declaration (e.g., “[e]ven crediting [Ms. Choi’s] version of events. . . Order, p. 9), the information set forth in Ms. Choi’s declaration filed under seal is, at a minimum, what she believes is true. Worse yet, such information may be used to impeach Ms. Choi. Defendants

respectfully submit that a litigant-client should not risk or suffer such a disadvantage for attempting toenforce her rights as a client. This Court recently laid out the standard for sealing (or redacting) documents of judicial records: The Southern District of New York has a presumption favoring public access to judicial records. Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, 814 F.3d 132, 141 (2nd Cir. 2016). However, access to judicial recordsisnotunlimited.U.S.v.Amedeo,44F.3d141,146(2ndCir.1995). To overcome the presumption of public access over a judicial document, the court must make "specific, on the record findings" that sealing (1) is necessarytopreservehighervaluesand(2)isnarrowlytailoredtoservethat interest.Lugoschv.PyramidCo.ofOnondaga,435F.3d110,120(2ndCir. 2006). "Higher values" the preservation of which might warrant sealing include personal privacy interests, public safety, or preservation of attorney-client privilege. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 125; Bernsten v. O'Reilly, 307 F. Supp. 3d 161, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). A sealing request is narrowly tailored when it seeks to seal only that information that needs to be sealed in order to preserve higher values. Susquehanna Int'l Grp. Ltd. v. Hibernia Express(Ireland)Ltd.,2021U.S.Dist.LEXIS151075at*4(S.D.N.Y.Aug. 11,2021). Charleston Immersive/Interactive Studio LLC v.Aydin,1:24-cv-4943,2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133431,at *2(S.D.N.Y. July 23,2024)(bold italics emphasis added). Here,the redacted portion oftheOrderdiscusses Ms.Choi’s recount ofherconversations with JiaChoi, aparalegal at Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm. Such dialogueis covered by attorney- client privilege. Therelevant rules provide: 1.Confidential Communication Privileged. Unless theclient waivesthe privilege, anattorney or his orheremployee, orany personwho obtains without theknowledgeofthe client evidenceof aconfidential communication made betweenthe attorney or his orheremployee andtheclient inthe courseof professional employment, shall not disclose,orbe allowed todisclose such communication, norshall theclient becompelledtodisclosesuch communication, inanyaction... NY CPLR 4503(a)(1) (underscore and bold emphasis added). Irrespective of this Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ motion to disqualify, the communications between Ms. Choi and Jia Choi remainprivileged. As such, theredactedportion oftheOrderhas the“highervalues”sufficient to overcomethepresumption ofpublicaccess. Moreover, the redaction of the Order is narrowly tailored. The redaction is limited to only three paragraphs quoting or paraphrasing the attorney-client privileged communications submitted for in-camera review. For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court continues to redact the portion of the Order (DE#26) as is currently redacted. WethanktheCourt forits timeandattention inthis matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ SeanS.Kwak Sean S.Kwak