U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta of Washington. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)

A Washington federal judge on Tuesday turned down a request from King & Spalding to destroy billing records the law firm submitted under seal as part of a petition seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees in a public records lawsuit.

King & Spalding withdrew its request for $665,000 in fees in the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after the federal trial judge, Amit Mehta, said the firm would be required to reveal billing rates and other information submitted under seal in support of the petition for compensation.

The firm, after it pulled its fee request, urged Mehta to order the clerk of the court and the U.S. Justice Department to destroy their copies of the billing records, which showed rates and other information about the lawyers who worked on the public records case for medical device client Abiomed Inc. The firm said its successful effort to obtain records from the Justice Department about an investigation involving Abiomed cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Justice Department opposed King & Spalding's request that the government destroy its hard copies of the billing records. The government noted that it has now received a separate FOIA request for those records, which remain sealed on the trial court's docket.

"The court agrees with defendants that plaintiff has offered no authority or compelling reason that would justify an order to destroy court records," Mehta wrote in Tuesday's order. "Plaintiff, in effect, asks the court to turn back the clock and treat the sealed material as if plaintiff had never intentionally placed it on the court's docket. That the court cannot do. Plaintiff's decision to withdraw its fees petition does not entitle it to erase associated filings from the public record."

King & Spalding has not commented about why it withdrew its petition seeking the fees. But the firm has argued in court papers that revealing the billing rates would harm the firm, one of the largest by revenue in the United States. "The public disclosure of such information would give the firm's competitors a leg-up in vying for future representations," King & Spalding white-collar partner John Richter said in a court filing.

Many major U.S. law firms generally do not publicly advertise their hourly rates. But that information, as the government noted in recent court filings in King & Spalding's lawsuit, often is available in bankruptcy litigation and other public matters.

"Neither the defendants nor the public has any discernible interest in forcing King & Spalding LLP to file proprietary case-staffing and billing information out in the open," Richter said in the court filing.

John Richter, of King & Spalding, at the National Press Club in 2016. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM)

Richter said King & Spalding "has never resisted making a full disclosure to the court, and it has likewise limited its sealing request to explicitly allow defendants full access to the billing documents." The available publicly filed documents, Richter told the court, are "sufficient to ensure a transparent vetting of the firm's request for fees as the prevailing party in this case."

The dustup over King & Spalding's rates stemmed from Mehta's initial decision allowing the firm to submit the internal billing information under seal. The judge later retreated, saying he had mistakenly assumed the Justice Department was not opposed to sealing those records.

"What plaintiff fails to appreciate is that the public interest in disclosure is arguably at its zenith when the fee demand is made against the public fisc," Mehta wrote in his April 7 order. "Indeed, there is something untoward about plaintiff asking to conceal their hourly rates and the work done from public view, while demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public treasury as compensation."

Mehta said in his new order he was dubious King & Spalding would face any harm over public exposure of its billing rates. But he agreed to keep the records sealed on the docket.

"Although the court continues to believe that the likelihood of competitive harm is low if the exhibits were made public, that factor does not override the absence of any genuine public interest in their unsealing," Mehta wrote.

Read more:

King & Spalding Argues Feds Should Destroy, or Return, Sealed Billing Records

King & Spalding Drops Fee Request After Judge Orders Billing Rates Unsealed

What New Supreme Court Cases Reveal About Big Law Billing Rates

Hourly Billing Rates, Latest Engagements: New and Notable FARA Filings

FBI Chief of Staff's King & Spalding Income Revealed in New Disclosure

Chris Wray, FBI Director, Banked $14M From King & Spalding Since 2016