Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

In an expansive sealing order, a Manhattan federal judge, citing “sensitive business information” related to Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, has sealed a letter filed by an adversary and ordered other documents in the case sealed or redacted as well.

The order arises out of a lawsuit brought by Boston Executive Search Associates, a recruiting firm that sued Simpson Thacher in December. The company claimed Simpson Thacher wrongfully refused to pay a $937,500 placement fee for helping it find and hire attorney Michael Torkin from Sullivan & Cromwell.

In a May 17 letter, as ALM previously reported, Boston Executive said its alleged damages had expanded after learning in discovery that the law firm may have paid the partner a $1 million signing bonus. Boston Executive raised the issue to ask for a hearing over a proposed amended complaint.

That notification led a Simpson Thacher defense attorney, partner Alan Turner, to argue the May 17 letter itself and Boston Executive's proposed amended complaint contain confidential information under a March protective order. Turner asked that the letter and the amended complaint be redacted.

In her May 25 sealing order, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield of the Southern District of New York said the “proposed redactions and sealed exhibits contain confidential information, specifically [Simpson Thacher's] sensitive business information.”

Schofield said although the right of public access to judicial documents is “firmly rooted” in the nation's history, “this right is not absolute” and “the proposed redactions and sealed filings are narrowly tailored and necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information, and to avoid competitive disadvantage.”

She directed Boston Executive to substitute another version of the now sealed March 17 letter, redacting information that Simpson Thacher identified as confidential.

She also allowed Boston Executive to file an amended complaint with redactions of “all confidential business information identified by defendant,” omitting “confidential exhibits,” and to file the complete amended complaint under seal.

The parties continue to tussle over what documents are truly confidential. In a May 22 letter, Boston Executive attorney Douglas Salvesen of Boston-based Yurko, Salvesen & Remz protested that Simpson Thacher had a sweeping view of confidentiality, arguing that discovery documents it had designated as confidential included email exchanges to schedule coffee; a copy of an Am Law Daily article reporting on Torkin's hire; an emoji; and “a text consisting entirely of the letter 'K'.”

In response, Simpson Thacher said it produced documents on the confidential process and communications that led to Torkin joining the firm. “Other law firms would no doubt be interested to see such sensitive business information to try to get a competitive advantage,” Turner said.