By Frank G. Runyeon

Law360 (April 29, 2020, 10:04 PM EDT ) A former legal staffing agency employee accused of blackmailing WilmerHale and Toyota over a highly sensitive document review project has been ordered by a Manhattan federal judge Wednesday to keep quiet about what he learned, at least for now, after publicly revealing the companies' identities.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman told Andrew Delaney to keep mum about the Thai documents he previously told Law360 he reviewed for Toyota along with any other confidential information he gleaned working alongside WilmerHale as a contract employee for HC2 Inc, known as Hire Counsel, until the judge got more information regarding the agency's extortion lawsuit against Delaney. That complaint didn't identify Toyota or WilmerHale by name, but Delaney did in a subsequent interview with Law360.

"You should understand that order to be effective immediately," Judge Liman said during a hearing, noting that Delaney was prohibited from "divulging information that is privileged or confidential or protected by the NDA or the employment agreement and that he learned during the course of his work for HC2."

The judge denied HC2's request for a broader order that would have prohibited Delaney from disclosing any information learned in the course of his job in favor of one that backs up his contractual obligations.

Judge Liman's temporary restraining order appears set to last several weeks until the judge hears a fuller accounting of the issues raised by the agency's lawsuit, which accuses Delaney of extorting WilmerHale and Toyota after HC2 suspended his project during the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City.

Delaney contends that he was punished for raising safety concerns about the spread of COVID-19 in HC2's New York City office in mid-March. He argues that he did not extort anyone, but merely requested compensation for retaliatory termination.

HC2's complaint did not identify WilmerHale or Toyota, referring to them as the agency's "Law Firm Customer" and that firm's "Corporate Client." But Delaney subsequently disclosed the names to Law360 in an interview about the suit.

That disclosure featured prominently in the arguments Wednesday over whether it was necessary to muzzle Delaney with a court order on top of his existing contractual and professional obligations.

Judge Liman told Delaney's counsel, Bogdan Rotman, that he was "troubled" by reading the names of WilmerHale and Toyota in the article, and said the press had a right to publish the information.

"They've got a right to call you up, to call your client up to ask all the questions that they want," the judge said. "What I am concerned about is whether your client has been divulging privileged or confidential information that he obtained during the course of his employment."

"He has not," Rotman said.

But HC2 counsel Ron Rossi argued that in addition to the identities of HC2's clients, Delaney had revealed confidential information in a Florida state "John Doe" complaint that betrayed the confidences of WilmerHale and Toyota.

Delaney even signed a special nondisclosure agreement "at WilmerHale's insistence, that specifically governs his conduct on the project," Rossi said.

Rossi also revealed in the hearing that Toyota, in a sealed motion, told a Florida judge that 41 paragraphs of the John Doe complaint contained privileged or confidential information.

Rossi said it was "chilling" to read in the Law360 report that Delaney believed he was not bound by attorney-client privilege on the basis that he was not working as an attorney on the document review project.

The judge confronted Delaney's counsel on that point.

"Is it your client's position that he did not owe duties as an attorney, and what's the basis of the opinion?" Judge Liman asked Rotman.

Rotman replied that Delaney was standing by his contractual agreements and his professional obligations as an attorney. "He just objects to anything more than that. I think those obligations are clear," Rotman said.

Previously, Delaney told Law360 that his distinction between document-review work and legal work was based on the Second Circuit's ruling in Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Addressing the issue of the Florida complaint, Rotman repeatedly stressed Wednesday that the lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed. He also cast doubt on the secrecy of any revelations in that complaint.

"A lot of that stuff is public information," said Rotman, noting that the Florida complaint is heavily footnoted with hyperlinks to news outlets. "I know that Mr. Rossi is jumping up and down, but he has not referred to one allegation in his moving papers of breach of confidentiality or even an example of one."

In a pro se opposition submitted to the court, Delaney said that before the "malicious defamatory remarks" in HC2's complaint, he had "an impeccable record as an attorney in New York for 30 years" where he "worked on numerous investigations, none of which has ever been disclosed."

"He has never been sued or had a complaint filed against him by anyone," the filing said. "But as a result of plaintiff's and its attorneys' malicious public lies about him, no one will ever employ him again."

Delaney's counsel closed his arguments on Wednesday by foreshadowing a series of counterclaims.

"There is a public health violation here, your honor," Rotman said, referencing Delaney's allegations that he was fired after emailing a warning to HC2, Toyota and WilmerHale about sick coworkers spreading COVID-19 in HC2's office. "I think the reason for the plaintiff filing this case is that they saw an employment, public health case coming."

Counsel for HC2 and Delaney did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment.

HC2 is represented by Marc E. Kasowitz, Ronald R. Rossi and Kalitamara L. Moody of Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.

Delaney is represented by Bogdan Rotman.

The case is HC2 Inc. v. Delaney, case number 1:20-cv-03178, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

--Editing by Michael Watanabe.

Update: The story has been updated to include additional information about the scope of the temporary restraining order.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.