Otto v. Hearst Communications, Inc., No. 1:2017cv04712 - Document 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies both Hearst's motion for sanctions, and Otto's cross-motion for a judgment of civil contempt and sanctions. In addition, neither party is awarded attorneys' fees. Accordi ngly, the Clerk is respectfully directed to close Docket Nos. 59 and 66 and mark each of them as denied. This Opinion and Order refers to information that has been redacted in Hearst's motion papers, and accordingly will be temporarily filed und er seal (and provided to the parties in unredacted form by email). The Court directs the parties to send a joint letter to the Court by email to CottNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov within 5 business days of the date of this Opinion and Order wi th any proposed redactions for the Court's review. The parties should be mindful of the presumption of public access to judicial documents in proposing any redactions, as notwithstanding the issues related to the confidentiality of the settleme nt conference, the Court believes it is in the public interest to publish this opinion without any redactions unless the parties can justify them. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court will then determine how this Opinion and Order may be filed on the public docket. Until further order of the Court, the Clerk is respectfully directed to file this Opinion and Order under seal. (This document was previously sealed in envelope #92 and unsealed on 3/5/2019.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 2/21/2018) (kgo)