Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MSP REAL ESTATE, INC.
and DEER CREEK HOMES,
Plaintiffs,
v.                                                                                                Case No. 11-C-281
CITY OF NEW BERLIN
and JACK F. CHIOVATERO,
Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion to file under seal
exhibit A to their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion declaring the attorney-client
privilege waived as to certain documents.  On April 25, 2011, the Defendants filed under seal
the following documents: their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion declaring the
attorney-client privilege waived as to certain documents, with attached exhibit A and a
certificate of service; as well as the affidavits of Mark G. Blum (“Blum”) and Kari Morgan
(“Morgan”).
The Defendants’ motion to seal cites General Local Rule 79(d)(4) and asserts
that good cause exists for sealing exhibit A because it is comprised of printed emails subject
to the attorney-client privilege.    The Defendants have established good cause for the sealing
of the documents contained in exhibit A.  However, they have not provided a redacted version
of the documents.




As the Comment to General Local Rule 79(d) (E.D. Wis.) states:
The  motion  to  seal should  be  limited  to  that portion  of  the
material necessary to protect the movant from the harm that may
result  from  disclosure,  e.g.,  the  fact  that  a  single  page  or
paragraph of a document contains confidential material generally
will not support a motion to seal the entire document. Counsel
may, and in most circumstances should, submit a redacted version
of the document, with a separate request to seal the portions
containing confidential material.
See also Methodist Hosps., Inc. v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1026, 1032 (7th Cir. 1996).   Thus, the
Court will require that the Defendants file a redacted version of the documents comprising
exhibit A.   Furthermore, as required by the controlling case law of this Circuit, the Court’s
sealing order will include a provision stating that any party and any interested member of the
public can challenge the secreting of particular documents.   See County Materials Corp. v.
Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007).
The Defendants’ motion seeks  only to seal exhibit A.    However, they also filed
under seal their brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion declaring the attorney-client
privilege waived as to certain documents, a certificate of service; and the Blum and Morgan
affidavits.   The brief, the certificate of service, and the affidavits are not mentioned in the
motion to seal although they were sealed.   They also do not contain any attorney-client
information.   Those documents must be unsealed.
NOW , THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
The Defendants’ motion to seal (Docket No. 26) is GRANTED.
2




Any party and any interested member of the public MAY   CHALLENGE the
secreting of exhibit A to the Defendants’ brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion declaring
the attorney-client privilege waived as to certain documents (Docket No. 23-1).
No later than May 9, 2011, the Defendants MUST file a public version of the
Exhibit A to the documents designated as Docket No. 23.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO UNSEAL the Defendants’'brief in
opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion declaring the attorney-client privilege waived as to certain
documents, the certificate of service, and the Blum and Morgan affidavits (Docket Nos. 23,
23-2, 24, and 25).
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 3rd   day of May, 2011.
BY THE COURT
s/ Rudolph T. Randa
Hon. Rudolph T. Randa
U.S. District Judge
3

Download 27514.pdf

Wisconsin Law