On July 13, 2023, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Mehra v. Morrison Cohen LLP, 2023 NY Slip Op. 50714(U), holding that a defendant was entitled to unredacted invoices supporting a claim for damages based on attorneys’ fees, explaining:
Plaintiffs allege that from October 1, 2019, to May 31, 2022, they incurred $3.69 million in legal fees and expenses in connection with defendants’ alleged breach. Defendants served discovery requests demanding the production of documents and billing records for the fees allegedly incurred by plaintiffs. On August 5, 2022, plaintiffs produced redacted invoices revealing only the date, attorney rate, time spent, and fees amounts. The records purportedly do not indicate which matters the hours were spent working on.
Defendants allege that the documents are so thoroughly redacted that they cannot discern time entries — prohibiting the defendants from analyzing whether the alleged fees were generated as a result of, or connected to, any alleged breach of duty by defendants. Defendants also claim they are unable to determine what tasks were performed and the necessity thereof, and whether the fees generated, are reasonable.
Plaintiffs submit that they have complied with First Department precedent by turning over information detailing the number of hours spent and the amount charged in connection with the provision of legal services. According to plaintiff, the fee logs are privileged, and the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees should be based only on non-privileged documents.
Where a party alleges that documents sought for production and inspection during discovery are shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the party seeking to withhold such documents has the burden of demonstrating that the information contained therein constitutes confidential communications between the attorney and the client for the purpose of securing legal services or advice.
In New York, not all communications to an attorney are privileged. Legal invoices are discoverable. Communications regarding the identity of a client and information about fees paid by the client are not generally protected under the attorney-client privilege, nor are communications regarding the payment of legal fees by a third person.
In order to make a valid claim of privilege, it must be shown that the information sought to be protected from disclosure was a confidential communication made to the attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or services. Plaintiffs fail to make that showing here.
Defendants will not be required to rely upon plaintiffs’ good faith estimated breakdown of billing invoices. Defendants are entitled to challenge that estimation through examination of the documentary evidence itself. Defendants do not seek impermissible attorney-client communications, advice, or impressions. Defendant’s demand for unredacted billing records is granted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).