You are on page 1of 47

1

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART: 23
2 -------------------------------------------------------X
ANONYMOUS,
3
Plaintiff,
4
-against-
5
ANONYMOUS,
6
Defendant.
7 -------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. 655887-2018 80 Centre Street
8 New York, New York
March 5, 2019
9
10
B E F O R E:
11
HONORABLE W. FRANC PERRY, Justice
12
13
A P P E A R A N C E S:
14

15 CANE LAW LLP


Attorneys for the Plaintiff
16 200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
17 BY: PETER S. CANE, ESQ.

18 DAVID BOLTON, ESQ.


Attorneys for the Defendant
19 666 Old Country Road, Suite 509
Garden City, New York 11530
20

21

22
23 (Continued.)

24

25
2

2 A P P E A R A N C E S: (Continued.)

3 BAKER HOSTETLER
Attorneys for Respondent Buhl
4 Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue N,W.
5 Washington, D.C. 20036
45 Rockefeller Plaza
6 New York, New York 10111
BY: MARK I BAILEN, ESQ.
7 PETER B. SHAPIRO, ESQ.

8 CKR LAW
Attorneys for Respondents Moreton Binn, Marisol
9 Binn, Marisol F, LLC, and CKR Law
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 14th Floor
10 New York, New York 10019
BY: MICHAEL J. MALONEY, ESQ.
11 ROSANNE E. FELICELLO, ESQ.

12 THE MCPHERSON FIRM, P.C.


Attorneys for the Respondent, The McPherson Firm
13 Tower 45
120 West 45th Street, 28th Floor
14 New York, New York 10036
BY: DEEPTI SHENOY, ESQ.
15
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
16 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press
17 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10020
18 BY: ROBERT D. BALIN, ESQ.

19 MEDIA FREEDOM AND INFORMATION ACCESS CLINIC


Attorneys for Amici Curiae, 16 News Organizations
20 and Press Freedom Groups
1675 Broadway, 19th Floor
21 New York, New York 10019
BY: DAVID A. SCHULZ, ESQ.
22
23

24
Lisa A. Casey
25 Official Court Reporter
Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
3
Proceedings

1 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Would you please

2 state your names and appearances for the record?

3 MR. CANE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Peter


4 Cane for the petitioner.

5 MR. BAILEN: Mark Bailen for respondent, Teri

6 Buhl, with me is Peter Shapiro, and Teri Buhl is in the


7 gallery.

8 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, Michael Maloney on

9 behalf of respondents, CKR Law and the Binns, and my


10 partner, Rosanne Felicello.
11 THE COURT: Is there anyone here representing

12 the remaining two respondents?


13 MR. BOLTON: Yes, your Honor. David Bolton
14 for Sheryl Aufrichtig

15 MS. SHENOY: Deepti Shenoy for the McPherson


16 Firm.

17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

18 MR. CANE: Your Honor, there's also another

19 respondent. The Cohen Clair Law Firm didn't file a


20 response, and is not represented here today.

21 THE COURT: We'll put that on the record,

22 because we didn't see anything from them, and we didn't


23 know if they were coming here.

24 Yes, counsel?

25 MR. BALIN: Your Honor, I'm Robert Balin,


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
4
Proceedings

1 Davis, Wright, Tremaine, for Amici Reporters Committee

2 for Freedom of the Press.

3 MR. SCHULZ: For the record, Judge, I'm David


4 Schulz with the Media Freedom and Information Access

5 Clinic, also here on behalf of Amici.

6 THE COURT: Is there anyone else who would


7 like to place their appearance on the record?

8 All right, then. We are ready to proceed in

9 this matter. Counsel for the petitioner, this is your


10 petition.
11 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor. It's good

12 to see that the first amendment is so well protected in


13 this courtroom this afternoon. I'm not sure, though,
14 it's justified in this case. First, as an

15 administrative matter, there was no response filed by


16 either the McPherson Firm or the Cohen Clair Law Firm.

17 The McPherson Firm is represented here today. I think

18 they are going to take the position they weren't served,

19 but this is the first I've heard of them. From them,


20 rather. Also the first time I've heard of them. And my

21 understanding, from a representation from counsel for

22 Ms. Aufrichtig, Ms. Aufrichtig has no objection to the


23 relief sought in the petition as to both the sealing,

24 and the underlying application for pre-action discovery.

25 THE COURT: Counsel, why should I seal this


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
5
Proceedings

1 matter?

2 MR. CANE: Because there is -- the good cause

3 is, there are two problems that my client has. He


4 produced the documents at issue, pursuant to the terms

5 of the confidentiality agreement. Then the federal

6 court sealed the record. And just as an update, I


7 submitted this with the responsive brief, memo, I filed

8 last night, but Judge Stanton --

9 THE COURT: On March 8th there's something


10 happening; right?
11 MR. CANE: March 1st, yes.

12 THE COURT: Something is supposed to happen.


13 You are supposed to do something in the coming week, I
14 believe.

15 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, Judge, I think we


16 need to back up a little bit. The judge sealed certain

17 documents on the record in the federal case on the

18 consent of all parties to that case, subject to my

19 client's reservation of rights to challenge the sealing


20 of those records. We continue to reserve our rights to

21 challenge the sealing of those records.

22 The other week, Judge Stanton issued an order,


23 and I have it in front of me here. I'm going read the

24 text for the record.

25 THE COURT: We have it, too.


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
6
Proceedings

1 MR. MALONEY: Okay. Basically, it says that

2 unless good cause is shown by this Friday, the judge

3 will lift the sealing of all material except for that


4 concerning Mr. Bernstein's divorce.

5 MR. CANE: Which shall remain. Which -- well,

6 finish what it says. It says, "which shall remain


7 sealed," so Judge Stanton has determined that those

8 documents should stay out of the public record.

9 THE COURT: I'm not sure that's what it says.


10 MR. CANE: It says documents, all material
11 concerning Mr. Bernstein's divorce, shall remain sealed.

12 THE COURT: But continue.


13 MR. CANE: That's dated --
14 THE COURT: Unless. That's all it says?

15 MR. CANE: May I hand this up, your Honor?


16 (Whereupon, a document was handed to the

17 Court.)

18 MR. CANE: It's an exception to the general

19 ruling.
20 THE COURT: Unless good cause is shown to the

21 contrary.

22 MR. CANE: Except that concerning


23 Mr. Bernstein's divorce, which shall remain sealed,

24 irrespective of whether good cause is shown to the

25 contrary. That's what the order says.


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
7
Proceedings

1 THE COURT: Well, we are not going to sit here

2 and argue Judge Stanton's order. We have enough before

3 us at this point about which we can discuss, so please


4 continue with regards to why I should seal this file,

5 why the parties should appear Anonymous versus

6 Anonymous.
7 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor. So, as I

8 said, first my client produced a document pursuant to a

9 confidentiality agreement in order to fulfill his


10 obligation in his divorce case, and of course there's a
11 separate statute in the domestic relations law that

12 provides that all documents relating to the -- filed in


13 the domestic relations case are to be sealed from the
14 public. Then there was an order issued by Judge Stanton

15 which is subject to no interpretation, the original


16 order which sealed the record and separately sealed the

17 email from Ms. Buhl that enclosed a confidential

18 document that she provided to counsel for CKR Law -- at

19 CKR Law.
20 THE COURT: So Ms. Buhl provided it?

21 MR. CANE: I'm sorry. Ms. Aufrichtig provided

22 it.
23 THE COURT: Okay. Because you said Ms. Buhl.

24 MR. CANE: I meant to say Ms. Aufrichtig.

25 THE COURT: Just assume for the sake of this


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
8
Proceedings

1 afternoon that my team and I have read all of the

2 documents that you have submitted. I even read last

3 night. So continue.
4 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor. I

5 appreciate that.

6 So we have these two problems on the interest


7 of a private party, when the Court weighs of interests

8 of a private party versus the public interest. The

9 private party produced documents in a divorce proceeding


10 that he reasonably expected would be maintained as
11 confidential, and then when Ms. Aufrichtig provided them

12 to counsel, the counsel before Judge Stanton received,


13 obtained an order sealing the record there. So six
14 months after Judge Stanton sealed the record, Ms. Buhl

15 published these sealed records.


16 THE COURT: But wasn't there, counsel, a lapse

17 of two days between the time that the record was

18 unsealed until the judge sealed the record? So couldn't

19 it be argued that anyone could have given, or Ms. Buhl


20 could have gone into the file, and gotten it herself?

21 Were it not for that lapse, the Court would have an

22 easier time in making this decision, but there was a


23 two-day lapse when the document was not sealed. Who is

24 to say that the law firm who was in the federal court

25 knew that this document was a part of the exchange


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
9
Proceedings

1 during the divorce proceedings and was subject to a

2 confidentiality agreement? That's an assumption that

3 we're making. But go ahead.


4 MR. CANE: And thank you, your Honor, for

5 making the case as so why I need pre-action discovery to

6 determine all of these very questions.


7 But the six-month lapse between the two days

8 that it was out in the open, versus when it was

9 published by Ms. Buhl, leaves answer -- or raises more


10 questions than it answers. It's possible, but the
11 timing indicates it wasn't a certainty. If there was

12 any reason to believe that's what happened, that that


13 two-day gap is the reason that that document became
14 public and was published on the internet, or its

15 substantive contents was, somebody would have made that


16 argument, but no one has really shown any fact to

17 indicate that that two-day gap had anything to do with

18 its being publicly disclosed.

19 So what is the public's interest in my


20 client's financial disclosures in his divorce? We have

21 sought -- since you have read the papers, you have seen

22 that there are a legion of cases in this court, in the


23 First Department, and other Appellate Division

24 departments, that say the public doesn't have an

25 interest.
Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
10
Proceedings

1 THE COURT: But counsel, I'm sorry, don't you

2 have it switched around? Don't we go into these cases

3 understanding and assuming that the public has the


4 right, under the bright light, to have access to court

5 documents, and it's your burden to show why the public

6 should not have an interest in this? Because there a


7 recent Appellate Division case in 2013, which was cited

8 in 2018, where a blogger, or it's a company that gave

9 running advice to people who were undergoing financial


10 difficulties, and the parties sought not to have that
11 information disclosed, and the Appellate Division

12 reversed the Supreme Court First Department saying, No,


13 the public has every right to see that information,
14 especially when the entity is a newsworthy entity,

15 especially what the person publishes news, and we have


16 that presumption of showing that light, especially, you

17 know, given the situation that we have today. So that's

18 why I'm saying, why should we seal this, in light of all

19 of that? Why should your client be referred to as


20 Anonymous? Why should we seal everything so that the

21 public has no right to see what's going on?

22 MR. CANE: Well, there is a continuum. It's


23 not an absolute.

24 THE COURT: Correct.

25 MR. CANE: As I'm sure the Court is aware.


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
11
Proceedings

1 Ms. Buhl is aware that the first amendment isn't an

2 absolute. She was convicted of criminal charges

3 already.
4 THE COURT: You know what, counsel --

5 Sit down, counsel.

6 We are not going there. We're not talking


7 about Ms. Buhl's prior to conviction. Let's just talk

8 about what's going on.

9 MR. CANE: I think it's relevant, because it


10 shows -- you're talking about newsworthiness. There's
11 no newsworthiness, your Honor. I think there's

12 substantial reason to believe that Ms. Buhl is


13 publishing this for a purpose very different from the
14 public's right to know. It appears to me that she's

15 shilling by linking, for example, to counsel's website;


16 flattering them in her coverage; taking sides in this

17 case. It's not on the side of right. I think she may

18 be on the side of short sellers, for example, and I

19 think discovery will be very interesting on exactly that


20 her motivation was in publishing these stories, these

21 several stories that are damaging to my client.

22 So on that continuum, your Honor, I think that


23 while the public has a right to know, the cases are

24 pretty clear that your Honor should weigh, on the

25 continuum, where the public's rights to know fits with


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
12
Proceedings

1 my client's right to maintain the privacy of his

2 confidential information, which he never would have

3 disclosed, but for assurances by signatures on a


4 contract saying it would be kept confidential. So he

5 has rights as well as the public, and does the public

6 really have a compelling interest in my client's divorce


7 financial disclosures? I don't think so. This isn't

8 the pentagon papers, this is a guy trying to make a

9 living.
10 THE COURT: Your adversaries have raised a
11 concern, reading the amicus briefs, that basically you

12 are seeking to have Ms. Buhl disclose her source with


13 regards to the information that she relied upon in
14 publishing her article, and that flies in the face of

15 the constitution, the shield law, and everything that


16 protects journalists. How do you answer that?

17 MR. CANE: Ms. Buhl will have an opportunity

18 to invoke the shield law if and when these questions are

19 asked of her. I think it's a very separate question


20 from the one we are here on today, which is whether or

21 not we should seal the record. The shield law says what

22 it says, and she will have that defense if I do ask her


23 for the source of her information, but if it turns out,

24 in the course of discovery, that we unveil that she's

25 not working as a journalist, but working at the behest


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
13
Proceedings

1 of, on the salary, on the payroll of someone, then she's

2 not entitled to the shield law protections.

3 And they are not automatic. Simply because


4 you have a blog doesn't mean that you entitled to the

5 shield law protections, your Honor. I think that's a

6 pretty fair statement of the law, and we are entitled to


7 investigate whether or not she is entitled to the

8 protections that this state affords journalists.

9 THE COURT: All right. We'll come back to


10 you.
11 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor.

12 THE COURT: Counsel?


13 MR. BAILEN: Yes, your Honor. Mark Bailen on
14 behalf of the reporter, Teri Buhl, and I would just like

15 to pick up, first, on this last point, the fact that


16 counsel said we are not here today on the issue of the

17 disclosure of her sources. Well, your Honor, we cross

18 moved to dismiss his petition, and we noticed it for the

19 prior date of the hearing, which was postponed until


20 today, so we are here to move to dismiss the petition on

21 the grounds that the discovery should not be had, and

22 there are essentially two reasons for that.


23 One is that the petitioner does not qualify

24 for purposes of the pre-action disclosure requirements,

25 and that is that he has a viable cause of action, and a


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
14
Proceedings

1 meritorious cause of action, and that the information is

2 material and necessary to the actionable wrong. He can

3 meet neither of those grounds, and this proceeding,


4 these types of proceedings, are not meant to be just

5 open-ended fishing expeditions.

6 Then secondly, and more importantly, the


7 discovery from my client that he seeks is just that. It

8 is the disclosure of a confidential source, and she is

9 protected under the absolute privilege of the New York


10 Shield Law, and the New York Constitution, Article 1
11 Section 8, where the New York Courts, for decades,

12 actually over 100 years, have provided this protection


13 to reporters, and most recently the in Court of Appeals
14 decision in Holmes v. Winter, where the Court pointed

15 out that this is one of the most important principles


16 there is.

17 As the Court says, "There is no principle more

18 fundamental or well-established than the right of a

19 reporter to refuse to divulge a confidential source,"


20 and that was the Holmes v. Winter case in 2013, and the

21 Court's continually have provided not only the absolute

22 protection, but also a qualified privilege. That's very


23 much, in my view, teed up for today, and the Court

24 should deny the -- or it should dismiss the petition.

25 On the sealing issue, you know, if the Court


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
15
Proceedings

1 would like to hear more argument, I think the Amici

2 presented very palpable arguments on that. We have

3 Mr. Schulz and Mr. Robert Bailen who combined have,


4 perhaps, more than 60 or 70 years of experience

5 litigating these very issues.

6 THE COURT: They are not that old.


7 MR. BALIN: Thank you, your Honor.

8 MR. BAILEN: Combined. I say combined. And

9 they are the foremost leaders in New York state on these


10 issues, and I think the relief that the plaintiff, or
11 the petitioner, here is seeking is extraordinary. I

12 mean frankly, I've never seen, and in conferring with


13 counsel for the amici, we have never seen a situation
14 where there's been an Anonymous v. Anonymous caption and

15 where nothing can be disclosed. To the extent that


16 there's some private, personal information such as

17 mental health information, or information about the

18 children, that could be understandably sealed, but with

19 respect to information about his business that directly


20 is related to the federal civil fraud suit, where there

21 are representations in the divorce proceeding regarding

22 his business's interest, and also representations that


23 were made in the company, that is not the type of

24 information that would be sealed.

25 So for those reasons, I think that if the


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
16
Proceedings

1 Court has any questions about the sealing, that we

2 should hear from amici as well, but a more important

3 issue for us and for my client is making sure that she


4 is not going to be forced to disclose a confidential

5 source, and there are two main reasons here. Your

6 Honor, you pointed out one of them before, which is this


7 information was publicly filed in March for two days.

8 Anyone in the world could have accessed that

9 information. Anyone in the world could have downloaded


10 that information from the PACER system, and then anyone
11 in the world could have provided it to Ms. Buhl.

12 However, there's a fundamental issue here that


13 we need to confront, which is there is no confidential
14 information that was disclosed to Ms. Buhl. She

15 believed, at the time, that when she received an email,


16 that the attachment to the email was a sealed document.

17 However, upon further reflection, it turns out that that

18 document was actually a later filing in the federal

19 court case that related to the sealed information and


20 discussed the sealed information. It was in connection

21 with the sanctions motion that was filed against the

22 plaintiff's counsel, and in their response, the


23 plaintiff's counsel explained why they attached the

24 sealed information that they didn't know at the time was

25 sealed, but the information that was confidential from


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
17
Proceedings

1 the divorce proceeding, why they attached that to the

2 prior filing. It was a motion, or an opposition, to a

3 motion to dismiss.
4 THE COURT: That's the Exhibit K.

5 MR. BAILEN: Exhibit K. The Sloan letter.

6 The Exhibit K. And they explained why they did that in


7 the sanctions, their opposition to the sanctions

8 motions, and they characterize and they describe the

9 evidence. They don't quote the actual evidence itself,


10 but they do describe it, and it was that brief that
11 Ms. Buhl relied upon when she was writing her article in

12 September, 2019 [sic], and she was forwarded that brief


13 by an anonymous source. However, if you look -- and if
14 your Honor would like, I prepared a copy of the brief.

15 THE COURT: That's okay, counsel.


16 MR. BAILEN: The sanctions motion.

17 THE COURT: That's all right.

18 MR. BAILEN: Because I highlighted the

19 portions in the brief, and then you can cross reference


20 them to the article. There is no confidential sealed

21 information that was written, that is written in her

22 article. She did not disclose any confidential or


23 sealed information. It can all be tied to that brief,

24 or it could be tied to the other information that was

25 already publicly available in the case, including in the


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
18
Proceedings

1 complaint and the other pleadings.

2 Ms. Buhl is a very experienced financial and

3 fraud investigative reporter. She has written for


4 numerous publications including New York Magazine and

5 Forbes and others; she has been highlighted in a

6 documentary film on her investigations; she's been --


7 her research has lead to criminal investigations of

8 numerous entities, and so she is very attuned to

9 researching and studying the record in these cases. She


10 was paying attention to the docket in the federal case,
11 and when she saw that the motion to dismiss was denied,

12 in part, in a securities litigation, it's very unusual


13 that a plaintiff can meet that bar in federal securities
14 that have to be -- you know, the amendments of the

15 1990's that really restricted it. So when she saw that,


16 she thought, This is a case that deserves more

17 attention. There's something here. There's something

18 there there. She began to study it more carefully, and

19 that's when she wrote an article over the summer, and


20 then when she got this email from a source sending her

21 the brief, she realized there was more to it with

22 respect to this, what they called the Rockmore note, and


23 again, all of that is public.

24 So there are two things here, Judge, that

25 there's no reason for this discovery, against Ms. Buhl,


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
19
Proceedings

1 at least, which is number one, anyone could have sent

2 her the information. It was not subject to any sealing

3 order. It was not subject to any restrictions, because


4 it was publicly available. And then, number two, if you

5 look at her article and look at what was published, she

6 did not disclose any confidential or sealed information.


7 So for those reasons alone, this case should

8 be dismissed. Then, if you want to wade into the

9 absolute privilege and the --


10 THE COURT: That's okay. We don't need to.
11 MR. BAILEN: Okay.

12 THE COURT: But just for the sake of the


13 record --
14 MR. BAILEN: Yes.

15 THE COURT: -- the Court has seen no evidence


16 that your client is not a journalist, as defined under

17 the statutes and under the caselaw, so the Court, even

18 though counsel has brought it up, he wasn't sure whether

19 she's a shiller on behalf of someone else, the Court has


20 not seen any evidence to show that your client is not a

21 journalist, and for the purpose of the Court, in reading

22 this, the Court understands that your client is a


23 journalist, is a newsperson, under the law.

24 MR. BAILEN: Absolutely, your Honor.

25 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
20
Proceedings

1 MR. BAILEN: There is no evidence whatsoever

2 to say this she's not a journalist. She does exactly

3 what a journalist does, and should be accorded that


4 protection.

5 THE COURT: Thank you.

6 MR. BAILEN: Thank you.


7 THE COURT: Counsel?

8 MR. MALONEY: Good afternoon, your Honor.

9 Again, Michael Maloney for the Binn and CKR respondents.


10 I would like to pick up a little bit where
11 counsel for Ms. Buhl left off. Your Honor, what

12 happened in the federal case is subject to the


13 provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26. The
14 federal rules don't apply in this court. They have

15 noting to do with the issues before your Honor. The


16 portions of materials filed in that court proceeding

17 that were sealed were sealed on the agreement between

18 counsel for the Binns and counsel for petitioner,

19 amongst the other defendants in that case. The memo of


20 law that Ms. Buhl ultimately received, and upon which

21 she made the inferences leading to her article was not

22 sealed, and it was not sealed based on the agreement


23 between counsel for the Binns and petitioner. There's

24 nothing confidential.

25 There's nothing that needs to be sealed or


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
21
Proceedings

1 protected from the public in that document upon which

2 she relied. I think that's extremely important for the

3 underlying request that petitioner makes here, and in my


4 mind it demonstrates that there's no basis for the

5 request, and no need for pre-action discovery.

6 I also want to go back and point out some of


7 the factual inconsistencies between what counsel for

8 petitioner argued here today and what is evident from

9 the record. We have spoken a couple times about the


10 Sloan letter. This is the letter that attaches
11 information concerning the so-called Rockmore note, and

12 in which counsel for petitioner made certain


13 representations about that note, and the ownership of
14 that note. On it's face, nothing about this letter or

15 its attachments suggestion that its confidential in any


16 way. Counsel for petitioner argued here today that the

17 letter was filed in connection a domestic relations

18 matter. That's not true, your Honor. The letter itself

19 is dated January 9th, 2017, and in the body of letter it


20 states that the matrimonial proceeding was settled as of

21 April 23rd, 2016, almost a year before. This was not

22 filed in connection with a matrimonial proceeding. This


23 is communications between two now-divorced parties about

24 potential claims that they are trying to resolve out of

25 court.
Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
22
Proceedings

1 THE COURT: Just for the sake of the record,

2 counsel, your clients were not subject to the

3 confidentiality agreement between the petitioner and his


4 ex-wife. You are not involved in that; right?

5 MR. MALONEY: You must be reading my mind.

6 That's my next point.


7 THE COURT: My children say that.

8 MR. MALONEY: Well, I don't want to touch on a

9 difficult topic.
10 THE COURT: Go ahead.
11 MR. MALONEY: But you're correct. Neither my

12 clients nor my law firm were parties to the


13 confidentiality agreement. In fact, the confidentiality
14 agreement was signed in 2015. The only parties thereto

15 were petitioner and his ex-wife. Nothing in the


16 confidentiality agreement itself references the domestic

17 relations law. It's merely an agreement between two

18 parties as to confidentiality of certain documents to be

19 exchanged between them, and I think this goes to a much


20 more fundamental issue on this proceeding before you,

21 your Honor. Nowhere in the verified petition does

22 petitioner allege that my firm, or my clients, had any


23 prior knowledge about the existence of the

24 confidentiality agreement. We cannot breach, or even

25 tortiously interfere with an agreement about which we


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
23
Proceedings

1 had no prior knowledge. Ms. Aufrichtig never notified

2 any one of us about the existence of a confidentiality

3 agreement. There's simply no basis to believe that we


4 had any prior knowledge about it. We are certainly not

5 parties to it.

6 I want to touch a little bit on something that


7 your Honor pointed out earlier here today, and that is

8 the burden here; who has the burden to show that these

9 records should be sealed from the public eye. I agree


10 with the point that you made earlier, your Honor, that
11 it is petitioner who bears that burden. It's not the

12 public, or these parties, the respondents, that need to


13 show why the public should have a right to understand
14 what's going on in connection with the Rockmore note and

15 its ownership. It is petitioner who should show,


16 really, why the public should not have knowledge about

17 the ownership of a secured loan about which a publicly

18 traded company owes a substantial amount of money, and

19 through which petitioner and his business partner,


20 Richard Abbe, can assert excessive control over a

21 publicly traded company.

22 Members of the public may or may not be


23 considering the purchase and sale of the stock in

24 XpresSpa as we stand here today talking about petition,

25 and without the availability of the information


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
24
Proceedings

1 contained in the Sloan letter they will be missing out

2 on valuable information that could affect their

3 decisions. That's a matter of great public interest.


4 There are innocent members of the public that could lose

5 a lot of money by investing in this company out the

6 benefit of this knowledge.


7 From our point of the view, the interest of

8 the public weighs so far strongly in favor of disclosure

9 here, that the record should be unsealed, including


10 Exhibit K, the Sloan letter, and for the reasons that I
11 mentioned in our papers, the petition should be

12 dismissed.
13 THE COURT: Thank you.
14 Counsel for the petitioner, you have an

15 opportunity to rebut what your adversaries have said.


16 MR. CANE: Thank you very much, your Honor.

17 Couple of points.

18 The confidentiality agreement didn't require,

19 as many of them do, I concede, that there be anything on


20 the face of the document that says it's confidential,

21 that defined anything having to do with my client or

22 Rockmore, or his other enumerated business interests


23 here were automatically deemed confidential.

24 The confidentiality agreement, as I said in

25 the papers, not to be redundant, but it binds anybody


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
25
Proceedings

1 who is engaged to represent either party in connection

2 with the divorce proceedings. I don't think there's any

3 question that this request for the document that ended


4 up with the Sloan letter, in response -- the Sloan

5 letter was produced in response to a request for

6 information in connection with the divorce proceedings.


7 If I'm an attorney and I'm representing a party in a

8 federal case over fraud, and one of the defendants

9 ex-wives sends me an email containing a document from


10 her ex-husband's financial disclosure, I think that's
11 reasonable notice to investigate whether or not it's

12 proper for me to put that in the public record, as


13 least, especially after counsel has conceded two
14 telephone conversations with Ms. Aufrichtig before

15 putting it in the public record. They could have simply


16 said, How did you get this document, and is there any --

17 do you have any obligations in terms of confidentiality,

18 before we are going put this in the public record? So I

19 think they were on notice, despite counsel's protest to


20 the contrary.

21 Again, why was there a six-month gap between

22 the disclosure of the information and Ms. Buhl


23 publishing that? And I appreciate your Honor's finding

24 on the record that Ms. Buhl is a reporter for the

25 purpose of the shield law. I do think, however, my


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
26
Proceedings

1 client is entitled to explore that in discovery.

2 Does your Honor want to hear argument on the

3 underlying application for pre-action discovery?


4 THE COURT: No. I've read your papers; your

5 briefs; the amicus briefs.

6 Just one thing, I believe that counsel was


7 saying, what about the two phone calls?

8 MR. MALONEY: Your Honor, I need to correct

9 this statement. This is incorrect. What we actually


10 said what we actually said in the Exhibit D to the
11 Felicello affirmation is that we had two phone calls

12 with Ms. Buhl after the decision denying the motion to


13 dismiss, and I wrote this letter. I signed it as an
14 officer of the Court. You can read it yourself. We did

15 not disclose, to Ms. Buhl, information that had, on


16 consent, been sealed in the federal case. I have never

17 spoken to Ms. Aufrichtig. Ms. Felicello, who is here

18 today, can tell the Court herself, she has never spoken

19 to Ms. Aufrichtig.
20 MS. FELICELLO: I have never spoken to

21 Ms. Aufrichtig, your Honor.

22 MR. MALONEY: I think, your Honor, these


23 factual inconsistencies lend themselves to a denial of

24 the request to seal and a dismissal of this petition.

25 MR. BOLTON: Your Honor --


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
27
Proceedings

1 THE COURT: You are next. You're from

2 McPherson?

3 MR. BOLTON: No.


4 THE COURT: Ms. Aufrichtig.

5 MR. BOLTON: Yes. Your Honor, so it has been

6 stated by the plaintiff, as if it's a fact, that this


7 letter, this Sloan letter that's been referred to

8 contains confidential information, and was subject to

9 the confidentiality agreement. That has not been shown.


10 The confidentiality agreement ended when the parties'
11 divorce ended. This letter was sent after judgment had

12 been entered. There's nothing to indicate on the letter


13 by the attorneys, who are a very well-known matrimonial
14 firm, that says, This should be considered confidential,

15 This is part of the matrimonial. This is was a


16 post-judgment issue that was raised between counsel for

17 the parties and was responded to, so for Ms. Aufrichtig,

18 I want to make sure it's clear, we don't concede in any

19 way that there was a violation of the confidentiality


20 agreement. We don't concede that the document was

21 confidential. The only issue that I'm aware of that

22 concerns my client on today is whether this file should


23 be sealed. She takes no position on that. She doesn't

24 consent to it. She just she says whatever the Court

25 thinks is appropriate, she will abide by, but we do not


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
28
Proceedings

1 concede that there was any violation of the agreement.

2 THE COURT: So counsel, am I clear that we

3 would not be here were it not for the fact that your
4 client sent this information to the respondents on their

5 side? Had she not sent anything to anybody, we probably

6 would not be here.


7 MR. BOLTON: It's possible. I don't know. I

8 haven't followed the Federal Court case, and I don't

9 know whether -- I believe the judge would have denied


10 their motion to dismiss anyway, but we can't read his
11 mind, obviously.

12 THE COURT: All right.


13 Finally, counsel for McPherson.
14 MS. SHENOY: Good afternoon, your Honor.

15 In term of the issue which we believe to be


16 before your Honor today, which is the issue of sealing

17 the record, or proceeding as Anonymous versus Anonymous,

18 we have to objection to that, your Honor, and we take no

19 position on it. We do not object to proceeding as


20 Anonymous versus Anonymous.

21 However, I just wanted to note, for the

22 record, as Mr. Cane said, we do take the position that


23 we were not properly served with the underlying

24 petition. We received the order to show cause to seal

25 the record and to proceed as Anonymous versus Anonymous,


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
29
Proceedings

1 but we don't believe that that would be considered

2 service of the underlying petition itself, and we would

3 just request an opportunity to respond. I actually have


4 answering papers prepared and ready to be served, but we

5 do take the position that we have not actually been

6 directed to serve an answer thus far, and so we would


7 request an opportunity to respond.

8 THE COURT: Counsel, finally.

9 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor.


10 I believe the order to show cause said that a
11 copy of this order to show cause and the papers on which

12 it's based will be sufficient service. Everybody else


13 was served with the same papers and responded. It might
14 have been easier, just as a matter of courtesy, once you

15 received them, to give me your answer, but I have no


16 problem with the position counsel has taken.

17 I just wanted to address what counsel for

18 Ms. Aufrichtig said. The confidentiality agreement,

19 again, just to belabor the point, because I think it


20 deserves it, anything that is -- any counsel who is

21 engaged, related to divorce, not in connection with an

22 active proceeding in the divorce, but for the divorce,


23 there never would have been this request for the

24 documents. That's the only reason that it was produced,

25 and we happen to know, because Aufrichtig has told us,


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
30
Proceedings

1 that all the documents that her prior counsel, Cohen

2 Clair -- who has chosen not to appear -- was transferred

3 to Ms. McPherson, so she had to have known at some


4 point -- she is an experienced divorce lawyer -- that

5 there is a confidentiality agreement in place.

6 Your Honor, I think the Court knows that


7 parties don't exchange financial information in divorce

8 cases without some assurance of confidentiality, and the

9 violations of this particular agreement are legion,


10 including, Ms. Aufrichtig was obligated to destroy
11 everything she had, and she didn't.

12 THE COURT: Finally, counsel.


13 MS. SHENOY: In terms of the underlying
14 petition for pre-action disclosure, your Honor, we would

15 take the position that the action should be dismissed


16 with respect to the McPherson firm. Our representation

17 of Ms. Aufrichtig was a one-month representation that

18 occurred six months after the divorce was completed. We

19 were never presented, as counsel said, with a


20 confidentiality agreement. We were never -- the Sloan

21 letter, as counsel has mentioned, does not speak to the

22 existence of a confidentiality agreement. We were never


23 presented with one; we never signed one; and we

24 certainly didn't disseminate any confidential

25 information.
Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
31
Proceedings

1 Basically, our representation consisted of

2 sending a letter pursuing potential claims that our

3 client might have had, and we received the Sloan letter


4 in response. The letter was forwarded to our client,

5 and our client basically decided not to pursue the

6 action, and that was kind of the limit of our


7 involvement in this situation. We would take the

8 position that there is no basis for the pre-action

9 disclosure with respect to the McPherson Firm.


10 MR. CANE: If you want to hear argument, your
11 Honor, on that, I mean, that's -- right there, again, is

12 good reason that we need the disclosure. You can't take


13 counsel's word for it that this is what happened. We
14 have actually, now, testimony to the contrary. We know

15 practice from Ms. Aufrichtig that Ms. McPherson received


16 voluminous documents from Cohen Clair, and we should

17 know whether or not those documents are going to be put

18 in the public record one day. If Ms. McPherson is

19 taking the position, or her firm is taking the position


20 that they are not bound by confidentiality, and they

21 have files full of my client's confidential information,

22 we'll we need to know that, and we need to address that.


23 THE COURT: All right, Ladies and Gentlemen.

24 We are going take a brief recess. When I return, I will

25 rule on the motion. Thank you.


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
32
Proceedings

1 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

2 * * * * * *

3 THE COURT: You may be seated.


4 In the matter as noted before this Court as

5 Anonymous v. Anonymous, upon the foregoing documents, as

6 presented to the Court, the petition for pre-action


7 discovery and order to show cause seeking the sealing of

8 the record, and to proceed under the caption of

9 Anonymous v. Anonymous, is denied.


10 It has been held that a petition for
11 pre-action discovery may be granted only if the

12 petitioner demonstrates that they have a meritorious


13 cause of action, and the information sought is material
14 and necessary to an existing or actionable wrong.

15 Liberty Imports versus Bourguet, 271 A.D.2d 535.


16 Pre-action discovery may not be used by a party to

17 ascertain whether she has a cause of action, or to

18 discover whether or not a claim exists, or to explore

19 the feasibility of framing a complaint. Uddin versus


20 New York City Transit Authority, 27 A.D.3d 265. In the

21 case at bar, petitioner claims that he has meritorious

22 causes of action for breach of contract, tortuous


23 interference with contract, injunctive relief, and

24 others.

25 In determining whether a petitioner as


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
33
Proceedings

1 demonstrated a prima facie case, the evidence presented

2 must be considered in the light most favorable to the

3 petitioner. Holtzman versus Manhattan and Bronx Surface


4 Transit, 217 A.D.2d 346. However, in viewing such

5 evidence in the favorable light, the Court finds that

6 petitioner has failed to establish the element necessary


7 to obtain pre-action discovery arising out of the claims

8 raised herein. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to

9 pre-action discovery pursuant to CPLR 3102(c) to


10 determine who induced the breach of the stipulated
11 confidentiality agreement in his divorce proceeding.

12 Petitioner also requests an injunction to


13 preserve information, quote-unquote. He claims that
14 each of the respondents has a, "Obvious incentive to

15 destroy or secrete evidence relating to the disclosure


16 of a confidential and sensitive business document,"

17 which was produced after the divorce proceeding ended,

18 and in the midst of a federal proceeding, which is still

19 pending.
20 These claims lack merit. It appears that when

21 one peels away the layers of petitioner's claims, he is

22 really seeking to ascertain the identity of the source


23 of Ms. Buhl's information, which lead her to publish an

24 article regarding the federal action, in which

25 petitioner is a party. He asserts that Ms. Buhl knew of


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
34
Proceedings

1 the confidentiality agreement, however, the record

2 reveals that Ms. Buhl was unaware of the confidentiality

3 agreement between petitioner and his ex-wife; she never


4 induced a breach of the agreement; she did not know it

5 existed; and she never received any sealed document

6 relating to petitioner, or any document covered by a


7 confidentiality agreement between petitioner and his

8 ex-wife.

9 Moreover, given New York's long tradition of


10 protecting freedom of the press, and recognizing the
11 critical role that the press plays in our democratic

12 society, Ms. Buhl, as professional journalist, is


13 protected by the shield law, which was enacted to
14 provide the highest level of protection in the nation

15 for those which gather and report the news, and to


16 promote the free flow of newsworthy information to the

17 public. Immuno Ag versus Moore-Jankowski, 77 N.Y.S.2d

18 25; Murray Energy Corp. versus Reorg Research Inc., 152

19 A.D.3d 445.
20 Petitioner also failed to establish a cause of

21 action against the CKR Law or Binn parties. The Court

22 denies petitioner's request for pre-action disclosure


23 against these parties, as there is no nexus between them

24 and the conduct about which petitioner complains. They

25 are not mentioned in the confidentiality agreement, and


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
35
Proceedings

1 there was no contract between them and petitioner.

2 Further, the petition alleges a breach of contract

3 between the petitioner and his ex-wife in connection


4 with their divorce action. These parties were not

5 involved in that proceeding.

6 The Court also denies petitioner's request for


7 a preliminary injunction. The purpose of a preliminary

8 injunction is to maintain the status quo until there can

9 be a full hearing on the merits. Putter v. City of New


10 York, 277 A.D.3d 250.
11 Here the, Binn and CKR Law parties have

12 already filed a document under seal in the federal


13 action. There is no need to issue an injunction by this
14 Court, as one is not necessary. Petitioner has also not

15 shown a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable


16 injury in the absence of such an injunction, and a

17 balance of the equities in his favor. As the

18 respondents are not parties to the agreement, he may not

19 succeed in this request.


20 Further, there is no showing that he will

21 suffer irreparable harm, or that the balance of the

22 equities fall in his favor. These claims are pled not


23 against the proper parties.

24 Finally, petitioner has failed to meet the

25 substantial burden demonstrating that compelling


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
36
Proceedings

1 circumstances exist to justify the total sealing of the

2 record at bar. There is a broad constitutional

3 presumption that the public and press are entitled to


4 access court proceedings. The right of access to

5 proceedings, as well as to court records, is firmly

6 grounded in common law principals, and the existence of


7 the correlating common law right to inspect and copy

8 judicial records, is beyond dispute. Mosallem versus

9 Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345.


10 The party seeking to seal records has the
11 burden of demonstrating compelling circumstances to

12 justify restricting public access. A finding of good


13 cause presupposes that the public access to the
14 documents at issue will likely result in harm to a

15 compelling interest of the movant. Mancheski versus


16 Global Group Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499. Neither

17 the potential for embarrassment or damage to reputation,

18 nor the general desire for privity, constitutes good

19 cause to seal records. Mosallem at 76 A.D.3d 349. The


20 courts have been cautioned that the discretion to limit

21 the public nature of judicial proceeding by the use of

22 Anonymous captions should be used sparingly, and then


23 only when unusual circumstances necessitate it.

24 Anonymous v. Anonymous, 27 A.D.3d 356.

25 Petitioner's financial interest in the


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
37
Proceedings

1 document already sealed in the federal court is not a

2 compelling circumstances warranting the drastic relief

3 of proceeding under Anonymous caption. Accordingly it


4 is hereby adjudged that the order to show cause to seal

5 the record and to proceed under the caption of Anonymous

6 is denied, as petitioner has not met his burden to


7 support such drastic relief, and it is further adjudged

8 that the cross motion to unseal Exhibit K is moot, as

9 the petition is dismissed, and the Court has denied the


10 order to show cause to seal the record.
11 It is further adjudged that the cross motion

12 to dismiss the petition as to Teri Buhl and CKR Law,


13 LLP, and the Binn defendants, is granted, and the
14 petition is dismissed without costs and disbursements.

15 Any requested relief not expressly addressed


16 by the Court has nonetheless been considered, and it is

17 hereby denied.

18 This constitutes the decision and order of the

19 Court.
20 Thank you very much, and have a good

21 afternoon.

22 MS. FELICELLO: Thank you, your Honor.


23 MR. CANE: Thank you, your Honor.

24 MR. BAILEN: Thank you.

25 MR. MALONEY: Thank you, your Honor.


Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
38

1 MR. BAILEN: Your Honor, one point of

2 clarification. So everything that has been filed in the

3 record now, originally the clerk was ordered to keep


4 under seal, is now unsealed?

5 THE COURT: It's unsealed. It's gone.

6 THE COURT ATTORNEY: There will be a separate


7 unsealing order directing the clerk to unseal the file.

8 THE COURT: They have to be two separate

9 orders. We can't put them both in one order, so there


10 will be a separate order with regards to that.
11 MR. BAILEN: Great. Thank you very much, your

12 Honor.
13 MR. CANE: Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Thank you.

15 * * * * * *
16 Certified to be a true and accurate

17 transcription of the above-entitled matter.

18

19
20
________________________________
21 Lisa A. Casey
Senior Court Reporter
22
23

24

25
Lisa A. Casey - Official Court Reporter
Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

13:8 apply (1) 29:18,25;30:10,17; 37:13


[ afternoon (7) 20:14 31:15 Binns (3)
3:1,3;4:13;8:1; appreciate (2) Authority (1) 3:9;20:18,23
[sic] (1) 20:8;28:14;37:21 8:5;25:23 32:20 bit (3)
17:12 Ag (1) appropriate (1) automatic (1) 5:16;20:10;23:6
34:17 27:25 13:3 blog (1)
A again (5) April (1) automatically (1) 13:4
18:23;20:9;25:21; 21:21 24:23 blogger (1)
Abbe (1) 29:19;31:11 argue (1) availability (1) 10:8
23:20 against (5) 7:2 23:25 body (1)
abide (1) 16:21;18:25;34:21, argued (3) available (2) 21:19
27:25 23;35:23 8:19;21:8,16 17:25;19:4 BOLTON (6)
absence (1) agree (1) argues (1) aware (3) 3:13,13;26:25;
35:16 23:9 33:8 10:25;11:1;27:21 27:3,5;28:7
absolute (5) agreement (31) argument (4) away (1) both (1)
10:23;11:2;14:9, 5:5;7:9;9:2;20:17, 9:16;15:1;26:2; 33:21 4:23
21;19:9 22;22:3,13,14,16,17, 31:10 bound (1)
Absolutely (1) 24,25;23:3;24:18,24; arguments (1) B 31:20
19:24 27:9,10,20;28:1; 15:2 Bourguet (1)
Access (6) 29:18;30:5,9,20,22; arising (1) back (3) 32:15
4:4;10:4;36:4,4,12, 33:11;34:1,3,4,7,25; 33:7 5:16;13:9;21:6 breach (5)
13 35:18 around (1) BAILEN (15) 22:24;32:22;33:10;
accessed (1) ahead (2) 10:2 3:5,5;13:13,13; 34:4;35:2
16:8 9:3;22:10 article (9) 15:3,8;17:5,16,18; brief (8)
accorded (1) allege (1) 12:14;14:10;17:11, 19:11,14,24;20:1,6; 5:7;17:10,12,14,19,
20:3 22:22 20,22;18:19;19:5; 37:24 23;18:21;31:24
Accordingly (1) alleges (1) 20:21;33:24 balance (2) briefs (3)
37:3 35:2 ascertain (2) 35:17,21 12:11;26:5,5
action (11) almost (1) 32:17;33:22 BALIN (3) bright (1)
13:25;14:1;30:15; 21:21 assert (1) 3:25,25;15:7 10:4
31:6;32:13,17,22; alone (1) 23:20 bar (3) broad (1)
33:24;34:21;35:4,13 19:7 asserts (1) 18:13;32:21;36:2 36:2
actionable (2) amendment (2) 33:25 based (2) Bronx (1)
14:2;32:14 4:12;11:1 assume (1) 20:22;29:12 33:3
active (1) amendments (1) 7:25 Basically (4) brought (1)
29:22 18:14 assuming (1) 6:1;12:11;31:1,5 19:18
actual (1) Amici (5) 10:3 basis (3) Buhl (28)
17:9 4:1,5;15:1,13;16:2 assumption (1) 21:4;23:3;31:8 3:6,6;7:17,20,23;
actually (7) amicus (2) 9:2 bears (1) 8:14,19;9:9;11:1,12;
14:12;16:18;26:9, 12:11;26:5 assurance (1) 23:11 12:12,17;13:14;
10;29:3,5;31:14 amongst (1) 30:8 became (1) 16:11,14;17:11;18:2,
AD2d (2) 20:19 assurances (1) 9:13 25;20:11,20;25:22,
32:15;33:4 amount (1) 12:3 began (1) 24;26:12,15;33:25;
AD3d (7) 23:18 attached (2) 18:18 34:2,12;37:12
32:20;34:19;35:10; Anonymous (21) 16:23;17:1 behalf (4) Buhl's (2)
36:9,16,19,24 7:5,6;10:20;15:14, attaches (1) 3:9;4:5;13:14; 11:7;33:23
address (2) 14;17:13;28:17,17, 21:10 19:19 burden (7)
29:17;31:22 20,20,25,25;32:5,5,9, attachment (1) behest (1) 10:5;23:8,8,11;
addressed (1) 9;36:22,24,24;37:3,5 16:16 12:25 35:25;36:11;37:6
37:15 Appeals (1) attachments (1) belabor (1) business (4)
adjudged (3) 14:13 21:15 29:19 15:19;23:19;24:22;
37:4,7,11 appear (2) attention (2) benefit (1) 33:16
administrative (1) 7:5;30:2 18:10,17 24:6 business's (1)
4:15 appearance (1) attorney (1) Berenson (1) 15:22
adversaries (2) 4:7 25:7 36:9
12:10;24:15 appearances (1) attorneys (1) Bernstein's (3) C
advice (1) 3:2 27:13 6:4,11,23
10:9 appears (2) attuned (1) beyond (1) called (1)
affect (1) 11:14;33:20 18:8 36:8 18:22
24:2 Appellate (3) Aufrichtig (18) binds (1) calls (2)
affirmation (1) 9:23;10:7,11 3:14;4:22,22;7:21, 24:25 26:7,11
26:11 application (2) 24;8:11;23:1;25:14; Binn (4) can (10)
affords (1) 4:24;26:3 26:17,19,21;27:4,17; 20:9;34:21;35:11; 7:3;14:2;15:15;

Min-U-Script® (1) [sic] - can


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

17:19,23;18:13; CKR (7) 34:24 11:2 34:11


23:20;26:14,18;35:8 3:9;7:18,19;20:9; conferring (1) conviction (1) cross (4)
CANE (27) 34:21;35:11;37:12 15:12 11:7 13:17;17:19;37:8,
3:3,4,18;4:11;5:2, claim (1) confidential (22) copy (3) 11
11;6:5,10,13,15,18, 32:18 7:17;8:11;12:2,4; 17:14;29:11;36:7
22;7:7,21,24;8:4;9:4; claims (8) 14:8,19;16:4,13,25; Corp (1) D
10:22,25;11:9;12:17; 21:24;31:2;32:21; 17:20,22;19:6;20:24; 34:18
13:11;24:16;28:22; 33:7,13,20,21;35:22 21:15;24:20,23;27:8, correlating (1) damage (1)
29:9;31:10;37:23 Clair (4) 14,21;30:24;31:21; 36:7 36:17
Capital (1) 3:19;4:16;30:2; 33:16 costs (1) damaging (1)
36:16 31:16 confidentiality (27) 37:14 11:21
caption (4) clear (3) 5:5;7:9;9:2;22:3, counsel (41) date (1)
15:14;32:8;37:3,5 11:24;27:18;28:2 13,13,16,18,24;23:2; 3:24;4:9,21,25; 13:19
captions (1) client (16) 24:18,24;25:17;27:9, 7:18;8:12,12,16; dated (2)
36:22 5:3;7:8;10:19; 10,19;29:18;30:5,8, 10:1;11:4,5;13:12, 6:13;21:19
carefully (1) 11:21;14:7;16:3; 20,22;31:20;33:11; 16;15:13;16:22,23; David (2)
18:18 19:16,20,22;24:21; 34:1,2,7,25 17:15;19:18;20:7,11, 3:13;4:3
case (21) 26:1;27:22;28:4; confront (1) 18,18,23;21:7,12,16; Davis (1)
4:14;5:17,18;7:10, 31:3,4,5 16:13 22:2;24:14;25:13; 4:1
13;9:5;10:7;11:17; clients (3) connection (8) 26:6;27:16;28:2,13; day (1)
14:20;16:19;17:25; 22:2,12,22 16:20;21:17,22; 29:8,16,17,20;30:1, 31:18
18:10,16;19:7;20:12, client's (5) 23:14;25:1,6;29:21; 12,19,21 days (3)
19;25:8;26:16;28:8; 5:19;9:20;12:1,6; 35:3 counsel's (3) 8:17;9:7;16:7
32:21;33:1 31:21 consent (3) 11:15;25:19;31:13 decades (1)
caselaw (1) Clinic (1) 5:18;26:16;27:24 couple (2) 14:11
19:17 4:5 considered (4) 21:9;24:17 decided (1)
cases (5) Cohen (4) 27:14;29:1;33:2; course (2) 31:5
9:22;10:2;11:23; 3:19;4:16;30:1; 37:16 7:10;12:24 decision (4)
18:9;30:8 31:16 considering (1) COURT (88) 8:22;14:14;26:12;
cause (17) combined (3) 23:23 3:1,11,17,21;4:6, 37:18
5:2;6:2,20,24; 15:3,8,8 consisted (1) 25;5:6,9,12,25;6:9, decisions (1)
13:25;14:1;28:24; coming (2) 31:1 12,14,17,20;7:1,20, 24:3
29:10,11;32:7,13,17; 3:23;5:13 constitutes (2) 23,25;8:7,16,21,24; deemed (1)
34:20;36:13,19;37:4, Committee (1) 36:18;37:18 9:22;10:1,4,12,24,25; 24:23
10 4:1 constitution (2) 11:4;12:10;13:9,12; Deepti (1)
causes (1) common (2) 12:15;14:10 14:13,14,17,23,25; 3:15
32:22 36:6,7 constitutional (1) 15:6;16:1,19;17:4,15, defendants (3)
cautioned (1) communications (1) 36:2 17;19:10,12,15,15, 20:19;25:8;37:13
36:20 21:23 contained (1) 17,19,21,22,25;20:5, defense (1)
certain (3) company (5) 24:1 7,14,16;21:25;22:1,7, 12:22
5:16;21:12;22:18 10:8;15:23;23:18, containing (1) 10;24:13;26:4,14,18; defined (2)
certainly (2) 21;24:5 25:9 27:1,4,24;28:2,8,12; 19:16;24:21
23:4;30:24 compelling (5) contains (1) 29:8;30:6,12;31:23; democratic (1)
certainty (1) 12:6;35:25;36:11, 27:8 32:3,4,6;33:5;34:21; 34:11
9:11 15;37:2 contents (1) 35:6,14;36:4,5;37:1, demonstrated (1)
challenge (2) complains (1) 9:15 9,16,19 33:1
5:19,21 34:24 continually (1) courtesy (1) demonstrates (2)
characterize (1) complaint (2) 14:21 29:14 21:4;32:12
17:8 18:1;32:19 continue (4) courtroom (1) demonstrating (2)
charges (1) completed (1) 5:20;6:12;7:4;8:3 4:13 35:25;36:11
11:2 30:18 continuum (3) Courts (2) denial (1)
children (2) concede (4) 10:22;11:22,25 14:11;36:20 26:23
15:18;22:7 24:19;27:18,20; contract (5) Court's (1) denied (6)
chosen (1) 28:1 12:4;32:22,23; 14:21 18:11;28:9;32:9;
30:2 conceded (1) 35:1,2 coverage (1) 37:6,9,17
circumstances (4) 25:13 contrary (4) 11:16 denies (2)
36:1,11,23;37:2 concern (1) 6:21,25;25:20; covered (1) 34:22;35:6
cited (1) 12:11 31:14 34:6 deny (1)
10:7 concerning (4) control (1) CPLR (1) 14:24
City (2) 6:4,11,22;21:11 23:20 33:9 denying (1)
32:20;35:9 concerns (1) conversations (1) criminal (2) 26:12
civil (2) 27:22 25:14 11:2;18:7 Department (2)
15:20;20:13 conduct (1) convicted (1) critical (1) 9:23;10:12

Min-U-Script® (2) CANE - Department


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

departments (1) 37:9,14 ended (4) existing (1) Felicello (5)


9:24 dispute (1) 25:3;27:10,11; 32:14 3:10;26:11,17,20;
describe (2) 36:8 33:17 exists (1) 37:22
17:8,10 disseminate (1) Energy (1) 32:18 file (4)
deserves (2) 30:24 34:18 expected (1) 3:19;7:4;8:20;
18:16;29:20 Division (3) engaged (2) 8:10 27:22
desire (1) 9:23;10:7,11 25:1;29:21 expeditions (1) filed (9)
36:18 divorce (22) enough (1) 14:5 4:15;5:7;7:12;16:7,
despite (1) 6:4,11,23;7:10;8:9; 7:2 experience (1) 21;20:16;21:17,22;
25:19 9:1,20;12:6;15:21; entered (1) 15:4 35:12
destroy (2) 17:1;25:2,6;27:11; 27:12 experienced (2) files (1)
30:10;33:15 29:21,22,22;30:4,7, entities (1) 18:2;30:4 31:21
determine (2) 18;33:11,17;35:4 18:8 explained (2) filing (2)
9:6;33:10 divulge (1) entitled (7) 16:23;17:6 16:18;17:2
determined (1) 14:19 13:2,4,6,7;26:1; explore (2) film (1)
6:7 docket (1) 33:8;36:3 26:1;32:18 18:6
determining (1) 18:10 entity (2) expressly (1) Finally (4)
32:25 document (19) 10:14,14 37:15 28:13;29:8;30:12;
different (1) 6:16;7:8,18;8:23, enumerated (1) extent (1) 35:24
11:13 25;9:13;16:16,18; 24:22 15:15 financial (7)
difficult (1) 21:1;24:20;25:3,9, equities (2) extraordinary (1) 9:20;10:9;12:7;
22:9 16;27:20;33:16;34:5, 35:17,22 15:11 18:2;25:10;30:7;
difficulties (1) 6;35:12;37:1 especially (4) extremely (1) 36:25
10:10 documentary (1) 10:14,15,16;25:13 21:2 finding (2)
directed (1) 18:6 essentially (1) ex-wife (5) 25:23;36:12
29:6 documents (15) 13:22 22:4,15;34:3,8; finds (1)
directly (1) 5:4,17;6:8,10;7:12; establish (2) 35:3 33:5
15:19 8:2,9;10:5;22:18; 33:6;34:20 ex-wives (1) finish (1)
disbursements (1) 29:24;30:1;31:16,17; even (3) 25:9 6:6
37:14 32:5;36:14 8:2;19:17;22:24 eye (1) Firm (12)
disclose (5) domestic (4) Everybody (1) 23:9 3:16,19;4:16,16,
12:12;16:4;17:22; 7:11,13;21:17; 29:12 17;8:24;22:12,22;
19:6;26:15 22:16 evidence (8) F 27:14;30:16;31:9,19
disclosed (5) down (1) 17:9,9;19:15,20; firmly (1)
9:18;10:11;12:3; 11:5 20:1;33:1,5,15 face (3) 36:5
15:15;16:14 downloaded (1) evident (1) 12:14;21:14;24:20 first (9)
disclosure (11) 16:9 21:8 facie (1) 4:12,14,19,20;7:8;
13:17,24;14:8; drastic (2) exactly (2) 33:1 9:23;10:12;11:1;
24:8;25:10,22;30:14; 37:2,7 11:19;20:2 fact (5) 13:15
31:9,12;33:15;34:22 during (1) example (2) 9:16;13:15;22:13; fishing (1)
disclosures (2) 9:1 11:15,18 27:6;28:3 14:5
9:20;12:7 except (2) factual (2) fits (1)
discover (1) E 6:3,22 21:7;26:23 11:25
32:18 exception (1) failed (3) flattering (1)
discovery (15) earlier (2) 6:18 33:6;34:20;35:24 11:16
4:24;9:5;11:19; 23:7,10 excessive (1) fair (1) flies (1)
12:24;13:21;14:7; easier (2) 23:20 13:6 12:14
18:25;21:5;26:1,3; 8:22;29:14 exchange (2) fall (1) flow (1)
32:7,11,16;33:7,9 either (2) 8:25;30:7 35:22 34:16
discretion (1) 4:16;25:1 exchanged (1) far (2) followed (1)
36:20 element (1) 22:19 24:8;29:6 28:8
discuss (1) 33:6 Exhibit (6) favor (3) Forbes (1)
7:3 else (3) 17:4,5,6;24:10; 24:8;35:17,22 18:5
discussed (1) 4:6;19:19;29:12 26:10;37:8 favorable (2) forced (1)
16:20 email (5) ex-husband's (1) 33:2,5 16:4
dismiss (8) 7:17;16:15,16; 25:10 feasibility (1) foregoing (1)
13:18,20;14:24; 18:20;25:9 exist (1) 32:19 32:5
17:3;18:11;26:13; embarrassment (1) 36:1 federal (17) foremost (1)
28:10;37:12 36:17 existed (1) 5:5,17;8:24;15:20; 15:9
dismissal (1) enacted (1) 34:5 16:18;18:10,13; forwarded (2)
26:24 34:13 existence (4) 20:12,13,14;25:8; 17:12;31:4
dismissed (5) enclosed (1) 22:23;23:2;30:22; 26:16;28:8;33:18,24; framing (1)
19:8;24:12;30:15; 7:17 36:6 35:12;37:1 32:19

Min-U-Script® (3) departments - framing


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

frankly (1) 6:15 Inc (1) 18:3 lack (1)


15:12 handed (1) 34:18 investing (1) 33:20
fraud (3) 6:16 incentive (1) 24:5 Ladies (1)
15:20;18:3;25:8 happen (2) 33:14 invoke (1) 31:23
free (1) 5:12;29:25 including (4) 12:18 lapse (4)
34:16 happened (3) 17:25;18:4;24:9; involved (2) 8:16,21,23;9:7
Freedom (3) 9:12;20:12;31:13 30:10 22:4;35:5 last (3)
4:2,4;34:10 happening (1) inconsistencies (2) involvement (1) 5:8;8:2;13:15
Friday (1) 5:10 21:7;26:23 31:7 later (1)
6:2 harm (2) incorrect (1) irreparable (2) 16:18
front (1) 35:21;36:14 26:9 35:15,21 Law (25)
5:23 health (1) indicate (2) irrespective (1) 3:9,19;4:16;7:11,
fulfill (1) 15:17 9:17;27:12 6:24 18,19;8:24;12:15,18,
7:9 hear (4) indicates (1) issue (12) 21;13:2,5,6;14:10;
full (2) 15:1;16:2;26:2; 9:11 5:4;13:16;14:25; 19:23;20:20;22:12,
31:21;35:9 31:10 induced (2) 16:3,12;22:20;27:16, 17;25:25;34:13,21;
fundamental (3) heard (2) 33:10;34:4 21;28:15,16;35:13; 35:11;36:6,7;37:12
14:18;16:12;22:20 4:19,20 inferences (1) 36:14 lawyer (1)
further (5) hearing (2) 20:21 issued (2) 30:4
16:17;35:2,20; 13:19;35:9 Information (40) 5:22;7:14 layers (1)
37:7,11 held (1) 4:4;10:11,13;12:2, issues (3) 33:21
32:10 13,23;14:1;15:16,17, 15:5,10;20:15 lead (2)
G hereby (2) 17,19,24;16:7,9,10, 18:7;33:23
37:4,17 14,19,20,24,25; J leaders (1)
gallery (1) herein (1) 17:21,23,24;19:2,6; 15:9
3:7 33:8 21:11;23:25;24:2; January (1) leading (1)
gap (3) herself (2) 25:6,22;26:15;27:8; 21:19 20:21
9:13,17;25:21 8:20;26:18 28:4;30:7,25;31:21; journalist (7) least (2)
gather (1) highest (1) 32:13;33:13,23; 12:25;19:16,21,23; 19:1;25:13
34:15 34:14 34:16 20:2,3;34:12 leaves (1)
gave (1) highlighted (2) injunction (5) journalists (2) 9:9
10:8 17:18;18:5 33:12;35:7,8,13,16 12:16;13:8 left (1)
general (2) Holmes (2) injunctive (1) Judge (14) 20:11
6:18;36:18 14:14,20 32:23 4:3;5:8,15,16,22; legion (2)
Gentlemen (1) Holtzman (1) injury (1) 6:2,7;7:2,14;8:12,14, 9:22;30:9
31:23 33:3 35:16 18;18:24;28:9 lend (1)
given (3) Honor (46) innocent (1) judgment (1) 26:23
8:19;10:17;34:9 3:3,8,13,18,25; 24:4 27:11 letter (20)
Global (1) 4:11;5:15;6:15;7:7; inspect (1) judicial (2) 17:5;21:10,10,14,
36:16 8:4;9:4;11:11,22,24; 36:7 36:8,21 17,18,19;24:1,10;
goes (1) 13:5,11,13,17;15:7; interest (11) justified (1) 25:4,5;26:13;27:7,7,
22:19 16:6;17:14;19:24; 8:6,8;9:19,25;10:6; 4:14 11,12;30:21;31:2,3,4
Good (13) 20:8,11,15;21:18; 12:6;15:22;24:3,7; justify (2) level (1)
3:1,3;4:11;5:2;6:2, 22:21;23:7,10;24:16; 36:15,25 36:1,12 34:14
20,24;20:8;28:14; 26:2,8,21,22,25;27:5; interesting (1) Liberty (1)
31:12;36:12,18; 28:14,16,18;29:9; 11:19 K 32:15
37:20 30:6,14;31:11;37:22, interests (2) lift (1)
granted (2) 23,25 8:7;24:22 kept (1) 6:3
32:11;37:13 Honor's (1) interfere (1) 12:4 light (5)
great (1) 25:23 22:25 kind (1) 10:4,16,18;33:2,5
24:3 interference (1) 31:6 likelihood (1)
grounded (1) I 32:23 knew (2) 35:15
36:6 internet (1) 8:25;33:25 likely (1)
grounds (2) identity (1) 9:14 knowledge (5) 36:14
13:21;14:3 33:22 interpretation (1) 22:23;23:1,4,16; limit (2)
Group (1) Immuno (1) 7:15 24:6 31:6;36:20
36:16 34:17 into (3) known (1) linking (1)
guy (1) important (3) 8:20;10:2;19:8 30:3 11:15
12:8 14:15;16:2;21:2 investigate (2) knows (1) litigating (1)
importantly (1) 13:7;25:11 30:6 15:5
H 14:6 investigations (2) litigation (1)
Imports (1) 18:6,7 L 18:12
hand (1) 32:15 investigative (1) little (3)

Min-U-Script® (4) frankly - little


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

5:16;20:10;23:6 7:24;14:4 moved (1) 23:1 order (15)


living (1) Media (1) 13:18 noting (1) 5:22;6:25;7:2,9,14,
12:9 4:4 much (6) 20:15 16;8:13;19:3;28:24;
LLP (1) meet (3) 3:17;14:23;19:25; now-divorced (1) 29:10,11;32:7;37:4,
37:13 14:3;18:13;35:24 22:19;24:16;37:20 21:23 10,18
loan (1) Members (2) Murray (1) Nowhere (1) original (1)
23:17 23:22;24:4 34:18 22:21 7:15
long (1) memo (2) must (2) number (2) others (2)
34:9 5:7;20:19 22:5;33:2 19:1,4 18:5;32:24
look (3) mental (1) numerous (2) out (12)
17:13;19:5,5 15:17 N 18:4,8 6:8;9:8;12:23;
lose (1) mentioned (3) NYS2d (1) 14:15;16:6,17;21:6,
24:4 24:11;30:21;34:25 names (1) 34:17 24;23:7;24:1,5;33:7
lot (1) merely (1) 3:2 over (4)
24:5 22:17 nation (1) O 14:12;18:19;23:20;
merit (1) 34:14 25:8
M 33:20 nature (1) object (1) owes (1)
meritorious (3) 36:21 28:19 23:18
Magazine (1) 14:1;32:12,21 necessary (4) objection (2) ownership (3)
18:4 merits (2) 14:2;32:14;33:6; 4:22;28:18 21:13;23:15,17
main (1) 35:9,15 35:14 obligated (1)
16:5 met (1) necessitate (1) 30:10 P
maintain (2) 37:6 36:23 obligation (1)
12:1;35:8 Michael (2) need (11) 7:10 PACER (1)
maintained (1) 3:8;20:9 5:16;9:5;16:13; obligations (1) 16:10
8:10 midst (1) 19:10;21:5;23:12; 25:17 palpable (1)
makes (1) 33:18 26:8;31:12,22,22; obtain (1) 15:2
21:3 might (2) 35:13 33:7 papers (8)
making (4) 29:13;31:3 needs (1) obtained (1) 9:21;12:8;24:11,
8:22;9:3,5;16:3 mind (3) 20:25 8:13 25;26:4;29:4,11,13
Maloney (12) 21:4;22:5;28:11 neither (3) Obvious (1) part (3)
3:8,8;5:15;6:1; missing (1) 14:3;22:11;36:16 33:14 8:25;18:12;27:15
20:8,9;22:5,8,11; 24:1 New (8) obviously (1) particular (1)
26:8,22;37:25 money (2) 14:9,10,11;15:9; 28:11 30:9
Mancheski (1) 23:18;24:5 18:4;32:20;34:9;35:9 occurred (1) parties (17)
36:15 months (2) news (2) 30:18 5:18;7:5;10:10;
Manhattan (1) 8:14;30:18 10:15;34:15 off (1) 21:23;22:12,14,18;
33:3 Moore-Jankowski (1) newsperson (1) 20:11 23:5,12;27:17;30:7;
many (1) 34:17 19:23 officer (1) 34:21,23;35:4,11,18,
24:19 moot (1) newsworthiness (2) 26:14 23
March (3) 37:8 11:10,11 old (1) parties' (1)
5:9,11;16:7 more (10) newsworthy (2) 15:6 27:10
Mark (2) 9:9;14:6,17;15:1,4; 10:14;34:16 once (1) partner (2)
3:5;13:13 16:2;18:16,18,21; next (2) 29:14 3:10;23:19
material (4) 22:20 22:6;27:1 one (14) Partners (1)
6:3,10;14:2;32:13 Moreover (1) nexus (1) 9:16;12:20;13:23; 36:16
materials (1) 34:9 34:23 14:15;16:6;19:1; party (8)
20:16 Mosallem (2) night (2) 23:2;25:8;26:6; 8:7,8,9;25:1,7;
matrimonial (4) 36:8,19 5:8;8:3 30:23,23;31:18; 32:16;33:25;36:10
21:20,22;27:13,15 most (3) nonetheless (1) 33:21;35:14 paying (1)
matter (7) 14:13,15;33:2 37:16 one-month (1) 18:10
4:9,15;5:1;21:18; motion (10) nor (2) 30:17 payroll (1)
24:3;29:14;32:4 16:21;17:2,3,16; 22:12;36:18 only (6) 13:1
May (8) 18:11;26:12;28:10; note (6) 14:21;22:14;27:21; peels (1)
6:15;11:17;23:22, 31:25;37:8,11 18:22;21:11,13,14; 29:24;32:11;36:23 33:21
22;32:3,11,16;35:18 motions (1) 23:14;28:21 open (1) pending (1)
McPherson (10) 17:8 noted (1) 9:8 33:19
3:15;4:16,17;27:2; motivation (1) 32:4 open-ended (1) pentagon (1)
28:13;30:3,16;31:9, 11:20 notice (2) 14:5 12:8
15,18 movant (1) 25:11,19 opportunity (4) people (1)
mean (3) 36:15 noticed (1) 12:17;24:15;29:3,7 10:9
13:4;15:12;31:11 move (1) 13:18 opposition (2) perhaps (1)
meant (2) 13:20 notified (1) 17:2,7 15:4

Min-U-Script® (5) living - perhaps


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

person (1) practice (1) produced (6) purposes (1) 28:24;29:15;31:3,15;


10:15 31:15 5:4;7:8;8:9;25:5; 13:24 34:5
personal (1) pre-action (13) 29:24;33:17 pursuant (3) recent (1)
15:16 4:24;9:5;13:24; professional (1) 5:4;7:8;33:9 10:7
Peter (2) 21:5;26:3;30:14; 34:12 pursue (1) recently (1)
3:3,6 31:8;32:6,11,16;33:7, promote (1) 31:5 14:13
petition (18) 9;34:22 34:16 pursuing (1) recess (2)
4:10,23;13:18,20; preliminary (2) proper (2) 31:2 31:24;32:1
14:24;22:21;23:24; 35:7,7 25:12;35:23 put (4) recognizing (1)
24:11;26:24;28:24; prepared (2) properly (1) 3:21;25:12,18; 34:10
29:2;30:14;32:6,10; 17:14;29:4 28:23 31:17 record (32)
35:2;37:9,12,14 presented (5) protected (4) Putter (1) 3:2,21;4:3,7;5:6,
petitioner (35) 15:2;30:19,23; 4:12;14:9;21:1; 35:9 17,24;6:8;7:16;8:13,
3:4;4:9;13:23; 32:6;33:1 34:13 putting (1) 14,17,18;12:21;18:9;
15:11;20:18,23;21:3, preserve (1) protecting (1) 25:15 19:13;21:9;22:1;
8,12,16;22:3,15,22; 33:13 34:10 24:9;25:12,15,18,24;
23:11,15,19;24:14; Press (4) protection (4) Q 28:17,22,25;31:18;
32:12,21,25;33:3,6,8, 4:2;34:10,11;36:3 14:12,22;20:4; 32:8;34:1;36:2;37:5,
12,25;34:3,6,7,20,24; presumption (2) 34:14 qualified (1) 10
35:1,3,14,24;37:6 10:16;36:3 protections (3) 14:22 records (8)
petitioner's (4) presupposes (1) 13:2,5,8 qualify (1) 5:20,21;8:15;23:9;
33:21;34:22;35:6; 36:13 protects (1) 13:23 36:5,8,10,19
36:25 pretty (2) 12:16 quo (1) redundant (1)
phone (2) 11:24;13:6 protest (1) 35:8 24:25
26:7,11 prima (1) 25:19 quote (1) reference (1)
pick (2) 33:1 provide (1) 17:9 17:19
13:15;20:10 principals (1) 34:14 quote-unquote (1) references (1)
place (2) 36:6 provided (7) 33:13 22:16
4:7;30:5 principle (1) 7:18,20,21;8:11; referred (2)
plaintiff (3) 14:17 14:12,21;16:11 R 10:19;27:7
15:10;18:13;27:6 principles (1) provides (1) reflection (1)
plaintiff's (2) 14:15 7:12 raised (3) 16:17
16:22,23 prior (7) provisions (1) 12:10;27:16;33:8 refuse (1)
plays (1) 11:7;13:19;17:2; 20:13 raises (1) 14:19
34:11 22:23;23:1,4;30:1 public (31) 9:9 regarding (2)
pleadings (1) privacy (1) 6:8;7:14;8:8;9:14, rather (1) 15:21;33:24
18:1 12:1 24;10:3,5,13,21; 4:20 regards (2)
please (2) private (4) 11:23;12:5,5;18:23; read (7) 7:4;12:13
3:1;7:3 8:7,8,9;15:16 21:1;23:9,12,13,16, 5:23;8:1,2;9:21; related (3)
pled (1) privilege (3) 22;24:3,4,8;25:12,15, 26:4,14;28:10 15:20;16:19;29:21
35:22 14:9,22;19:9 18;31:18;34:17;36:3, reading (3) relating (3)
point (8) privity (1) 12,13,21 12:11;19:21;22:5 7:12;33:15;34:6
7:3;13:15;21:6; 36:18 publications (1) ready (2) relations (4)
22:6;23:10;24:7; probably (1) 18:4 4:8;29:4 7:11,13;21:17;
29:19;30:4 28:5 publicly (6) realized (1) 22:17
pointed (3) problem (1) 9:18;16:7;17:25; 18:21 relevant (1)
14:14;16:6;23:7 29:16 19:4;23:17,21 really (5) 11:9
points (1) problems (2) public's (3) 9:16;12:6;18:15; relied (3)
24:17 5:3;8:6 9:19;11:14,25 23:16;33:22 12:13;17:11;21:2
portions (2) Procedure (1) publish (1) reason (6) relief (6)
17:19;20:16 20:13 33:23 9:12,13;11:12; 4:23;15:10;32:23;
position (10) proceed (4) published (4) 18:25;29:24;31:12 37:2,7,15
4:18;27:23;28:19, 4:8;28:25;32:8; 8:15;9:9,14;19:5 reasonable (1) remain (4)
22;29:5,16;30:15; 37:5 publishes (1) 25:11 6:5,6,11,23
31:8,19,19 proceeding (17) 10:15 reasonably (1) remaining (1)
possible (2) 8:9;14:3;15:21; publishing (4) 8:10 3:12
9:10;28:7 17:1;20:16;21:20,22; 11:13,20;12:14; reasons (5) Reorg (1)
post-judgment (1) 22:20;28:17,19; 25:23 13:22;15:25;16:5; 34:18
27:16 29:22;33:11,17,18; purchase (1) 19:7;24:10 report (1)
postponed (1) 35:5;36:21;37:3 23:23 rebut (1) 34:15
13:19 proceedings (6) purpose (4) 24:15 reporter (4)
potential (3) 9:1;14:4;25:2,6; 11:13;19:21;25:25; received (8) 13:14;14:19;18:3;
21:24;31:2;36:17 36:4,5 35:7 8:12;16:15;20:20; 25:24

Min-U-Script® (6) person - reporter


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

Reporters (2) reveals (1) 26:16;27:23;34:5; shilling (1) 23:24


4:1;14:13 34:2 37:1 11:15 Stanton (6)
represent (1) reversed (1) sealing (11) short (1) 5:8,22;6:7;7:14;
25:1 10:12 4:23;5:19,21;6:3; 11:18 8:12,14
representation (4) Richard (1) 8:13;14:25;16:1; show (11) Stanton's (1)
4:21;30:16,17;31:1 23:20 19:2;28:16;32:7;36:1 10:5;19:20;23:8, 7:2
representations (3) right (21) seated (1) 13,15;28:24;29:10, state (3)
15:21,22;21:13 3:17;4:8;5:10;10:4, 32:3 11;32:7;37:4,10 3:2;13:8;15:9
represented (2) 13,21;11:14,17,23; secondly (1) showing (2) stated (1)
3:20;4:17 12:1;13:9;14:18; 14:6 10:16;35:20 27:6
representing (2) 17:17;19:25;22:4; secrete (1) shown (6) statement (2)
3:11;25:7 23:13;28:12;31:11, 33:15 6:2,20,24;9:16; 13:6;26:9
reputation (1) 23;36:4,7 Section (1) 27:9;35:15 states (1)
36:17 rights (4) 14:11 shows (1) 21:20
request (11) 5:19,20;11:25;12:5 secured (1) 11:10 status (1)
21:3,5;25:3,5; Robert (2) 23:17 side (3) 35:8
26:24;29:3,7,23; 3:25;15:3 securities (2) 11:17,18;28:5 statute (1)
34:22;35:6,19 Rockmore (4) 18:12,13 sides (1) 7:11
requested (1) 18:22;21:11;23:14; seeking (5) 11:16 statutes (1)
37:15 24:22 12:12;15:11;32:7; signatures (1) 19:17
requests (1) role (1) 33:22;36:10 12:3 stay (1)
33:12 34:11 seeks (1) signed (3) 6:8
require (1) Rosanne (1) 14:7 22:14;26:13;30:23 still (1)
24:18 3:10 sellers (1) Simply (3) 33:18
requirements (1) rule (1) 11:18 13:3;23:3;25:15 stipulated (1)
13:24 31:25 sending (2) sit (2) 33:10
research (2) Rules (2) 18:20;31:2 7:1;11:5 stock (1)
18:7;34:18 20:13,14 sends (1) situation (3) 23:23
researching (1) ruling (1) 25:9 10:17;15:13;31:7 stories (2)
18:9 6:19 sensitive (1) six (2) 11:20,21
reservation (1) running (1) 33:16 8:13;30:18 strongly (1)
5:19 10:9 sent (4) six-month (2) 24:8
reserve (1) 19:1;27:11;28:4,5 9:7;25:21 study (1)
5:20 S separate (2) Sloan (9) 18:18
resolve (1) 7:11;12:19 17:5;21:10;24:1, studying (1)
21:24 sake (3) separately (1) 10;25:4,4;27:7; 18:9
respect (4) 7:25;19:12;22:1 7:16 30:20;31:3 subject (8)
15:19;18:22;30:16; salary (1) September (1) so-called (1) 5:18;7:15;9:1;19:2,
31:9 13:1 17:12 21:11 3;20:12;22:2;27:8
respond (2) sale (1) serve (1) society (1) submitted (2)
29:3,7 23:23 29:6 34:12 5:7;8:2
responded (2) same (1) served (4) somebody (1) substantial (3)
27:17;29:13 29:13 4:18;28:23;29:4,13 9:15 11:12;23:18;35:25
respondent (2) sanctions (4) service (2) someone (2) substantive (1)
3:5,19 16:21;17:7,7,16 29:2,12 13:1;19:19 9:15
respondents (7) saw (2) settled (1) sorry (2) succeed (1)
3:9,12;20:9;23:12; 18:11,15 21:20 7:21;10:1 35:19
28:4;33:14;35:18 saying (4) several (1) sought (4) success (1)
response (6) 10:12,18;12:4;26:7 11:21 4:23;9:21;10:10; 35:15
3:20;4:15;16:22; SCHULZ (3) shall (4) 32:13 suffer (1)
25:4,5;31:4 4:3,4;15:3 6:5,6,11,23 source (8) 35:21
responsive (1) seal (12) Shapiro (1) 12:12,23;14:8,19; sufficient (1)
5:7 4:25;7:4;10:18,20; 3:6 16:5;17:13;18:20; 29:12
restricted (1) 12:21;26:24;28:24; Shenoy (4) 33:22 suggestion (1)
18:15 35:12;36:10,19;37:4, 3:15,15;28:14; sources (1) 21:15
restricting (1) 10 30:13 13:17 suit (1)
36:12 sealed (32) Sheryl (1) sparingly (1) 15:20
restrictions (1) 5:6,16;6:7,11,23; 3:14 36:22 summer (1)
19:3 7:13,16,16;8:14,15, shield (8) speak (1) 18:19
result (1) 18,23;15:18,24; 12:15,18,21;13:2, 30:21 support (1)
36:14 16:16,19,20,24,25; 5;14:10;25:25;34:13 spoken (4) 37:7
return (1) 17:20,23;19:6;20:17, shiller (1) 21:9;26:17,18,20 supposed (2)
31:24 17,22,22,25;23:9; 19:19 stand (1) 5:12,13

Min-U-Script® (7) Reporters - supposed


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

Supreme (1) 22:8;23:6 25:4 14:14,20 17:12


10:12 traded (2) update (1) without (3) 217 (1)
sure (6) 23:18,21 5:6 23:25;30:8;37:14 33:4
4:13;6:9;10:25; tradition (1) upon (6) word (1) 23rd (1)
16:3;19:18;27:18 34:9 12:13;16:17;17:11; 31:13 21:21
Surface (1) transferred (1) 20:20;21:1;32:5 working (2) 25 (1)
33:3 30:2 use (1) 12:25,25 34:18
switched (1) Transit (2) 36:21 world (3) 250 (1)
10:2 32:20;33:4 used (2) 16:8,9,11 35:10
system (1) Tremaine (1) 32:16;36:22 Wright (1) 26 (1)
16:10 4:1 4:1 20:13
true (1) V writing (1) 265 (1)
T 21:18 17:11 32:20
trying (2) valuable (1) written (3) 27 (2)
talk (1) 12:8;21:24 24:2 17:21,21;18:3 32:20;36:24
11:7 turns (2) verified (1) wrong (2) 271 (1)
talking (3) 12:23;16:17 22:21 14:2;32:14 32:15
11:6,10;23:24 two (15) versus (13) wrote (2) 277 (1)
team (1) 3:12;5:3;8:6,17; 7:5;8:8;9:8;28:17, 18:19;26:13 35:10
8:1 9:7;13:22;16:5,7; 20,25;32:15,19;33:3;
teed (1) 18:24;19:4;21:23; 34:17,18;36:8,15 X 3
14:23 22:17;25:13;26:7,11 viable (1)
telephone (1) two-day (3) 13:25 XpresSpa (1) 3102c (1)
25:14 8:23;9:13,17 view (2) 23:24 33:9
Teri (4) type (1) 14:23;24:7 345 (1)
3:5,6;13:14;37:12 15:23 viewing (1) Y 36:9
term (1) types (1) 33:4 346 (1)
28:15 14:4 violation (2) year (1) 33:4
terms (3) 27:19;28:1 21:21 349 (1)
5:4;25:17;30:13 U violations (1) years (2) 36:19
testimony (1) 30:9 14:12;15:4 356 (1)
31:14 Uddin (1) voluminous (1) York (7) 36:24
thereto (1) 32:19 31:16 14:9,10,11;15:9; 39 (1)
22:14 ultimately (1) 18:4;32:20;35:10 36:16
though (2) 20:20 W York's (1)
4:13;19:18 unaware (1) 34:9 4
thought (1) 34:2 wade (1)
18:16 under (9) 19:8 1 445 (1)
thus (1) 10:4;14:9;19:16, warranting (1) 34:19
29:6 17,23;32:8;35:12; 37:2 1 (1) 499 (1)
tied (2) 37:3,5 way (2) 14:10 36:16
17:23,24 undergoing (1) 21:16;27:19 100 (1)
times (1) 10:9 website (1) 14:12 5
21:9 underlying (6) 11:15 152 (1)
timing (1) 4:24;21:3;26:3; week (2) 34:18 535 (1)
9:11 28:23;29:2;30:13 5:13,22 1990's (1) 32:15
today (14) understandably (1) weigh (1) 18:15
3:20;4:17;10:17; 15:18 11:24 1st (1) 6
12:20;13:16,20; understands (1) weighs (2) 5:11
14:23;21:8,16;23:7, 19:22 8:7;24:8 60 (1)
24;26:18;27:22; unless (3) well-established (1) 2 15:4
28:16 6:2,14,20 14:18
told (1) unseal (1) well-known (1) 2013 (2) 7
29:25 37:8 27:13 10:7;14:20
topic (1) unsealed (2) weren't (1) 2015 (1) 70 (1)
22:9 8:18;24:9 4:18 22:14 15:4
tortiously (1) unusual (2) what's (3) 2016 (1) 76 (2)
22:25 18:12;36:23 10:21;11:8;23:14 21:21 36:9,19
tortuous (1) unveil (1) whatsoever (1) 2017 (1) 77 (1)
32:22 12:24 20:1 21:19 34:17
total (1) up (7) Whereupon (2) 2018 (1)
36:1 5:16;6:15;13:15; 6:16;32:1 10:8 8
touch (2) 14:23;19:18;20:10; Winter (2) 2019 (1)

Min-U-Script® (8) Supreme - 77


Anonymous v.
Anonymous March 5, 2019

8 (1)
14:11
8th (1)
5:9

9
9th (1)
21:19

Min-U-Script® (9) 8 - 9th