Melendez, et al. v. Ethical Culture Fieldston School, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 1:23-cv-04917
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

i ‘ ‘ The sealing motion at Dkt. No. 83 is GRANTED. ONE EXCHANGE PLAZA 55 BROADWAY -— 23 FLOOR The Clerk of the Court tfull NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10006 [giected to close Dkt. No. 83 and kee TELEPHONE: (212) 553-9215 the motion to enforce charging lien FAX: (212) 227-8763 Dkt. No. 84 sealed. April 24, 2026 SO ORDERED 4/27/26 VIA CM/ECF yy, pA Hon. Sarah L. Cave, U.S.M.J. A WOT ie United States District Court (nae ie sudee Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Melendez, et al. v. Ethical Culture Fieldston School, et al. —23-cv-04917 Dear Honorable Judge Cave: I am the Chairman of The Cochran Firm, former counsel for the Plaintiffs in the above- referenced matter. I submit this letter motion seeking the Court’s permission to file The Cochran Firm’s Motion to enforce its charging lien against the settlement proceeds in the above-referenced matter, as well as the exhibits annexed thereto, under seal and to selected parties only. The motion papers contain privileged and confidential attorney client communications including emails, text messages and references in billing records, as well as documents that were transmitted as confidential settlement communications. In addition, there are references to attorney client communications contained in the memorandum of law. In that regard, the filing of such documents under seal selected parties is appropriate to preserve the attorney-client privilege between TCF, their former clients, and Plaintiffs’ new counsel, Messrs. Nat Smith and John Lenoir. The Court approved the filing of such documents under seal and to selected parties in the related Wright and Mason matters for the same reasons set forth herein. “The common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The presumption of access is based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995). “[T]he weight to be given the presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Lugosch supra. “Once the weight of the presumption is determined, a court must balance competing considerations against it.” Amodeo supra. Documents may be sealed if findings are made demonstrating that closure is essential to

Page 1 of 2

preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc., 462 F. Supp. 3d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “Higher values that may justify the sealing of documents include national security concerns, attorney-client privilege, law enforcement interests, or the privacy interests of third- parties.” Id. Further, correspondence, bills, ledgers, statements, and time records which also reveal the motive of the client in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, ..., fall within the privilege.” Diversified Grp., Inc. v. Daugerdas, 304 F. Supp. 2d 507, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) See also Riddell Sports, Inc. v. Brooks, 158 F.R.D. 555, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “[A]ttorney billing statements are subject to the attorney-client privilege to the extent that they reveal more than client identity and fee information.” Ehrich v. Binghamton City Sch. Dist., 210 F.R.D. 17, 23 (N.D.N.Y. 2002). Additionally, the Second Circuit has held that settlement communications are also appropriately subject to sealing. See United States v. Glens Falls Newspapers, Inc., 160 F.3d 853, 856 (2d Cir. 1998). For these reasons, we ask that the moving papers be filed under seal and be viewable only to Messrs. Nat Smith and John Lenoir. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Derek S. Sells Derek S. Sells, Esq.