To Be Argued By: Andrew N. Bourne Time Requested: 15 Minutes 3mm 390111 ?upreme (Kmart APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT Docket No. WILLIAM J. 2017-05359 against MICHAEL N. KLAR, Defendant-Appellant. GIZMODO MEDIA GROUP, LLC, Intervenor?Appellant, MAUREEN Intervenor?Respondent. BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF -RESPONDENT HOGUET NEWMAN REGAL KENNEY, LLP Attorneys for PlaintZ?-Respondent 10 East 40th Street, 35th Floor Of Counsel: New York, New York 10016 Fredric S. Newman 212-689-8808 Andrew N. Bourne Nassau Ceunty Clerk?s Index No. 608441/16 TABLE OF CONTENTS PRESENTED - 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 ARGUMENT 6 I. A DECISION TO SEAL ITS RECORDS IS REVIEWED FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION 6 II. THE IAS COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DESCRETION IN ENTERING THE SEALING ORDER 7 A. The IAS Court Made A Factual Good Cause Analysis With Respect To Each Document That It Ordered Sealed 8 B. New York Law Protects The Con?dentiality Of Records Of Matrimonial Proceedings 9 C. The Sealing Order Also Protects Third Parties From Harm 11 D. The IAS Court Appropriately Balanced the Public Interest Against the Interests of the Parties 13 CONCLUSION 16 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Appleheaa? Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 181 (131 Dep?t 2010) 9-10 Booth v. Curtis Publ ?g Ca, 15 343 (1st Dep?t 1962) 13 Brinkley v. Casablancas, 80 428 (lst Dep?t 1981) 13 Crafts Commc?rzs, Inc. v. Hughes, 135 351 (1st Dep?t 1987), 74 626 (1989) 14 Dance Labs, Ltd. Chem Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd, 9 t2000) 1 14 15,16 Danziger v. Hearst Corp. 304 NY. 244 (1952) 10-11 Gannett Co. v. De Pasquale, 43 370 (1977) 15 Hynes'v. Karassik, 47 659 (1979) 7 In re Estate of R. R. Jr., 153 Misc. 2d 747 (Surr. Ct. Rensse1aer Cty. 1992) 14 In re Skutch Music Publ? g, Inc. (Diaz), N0. 2013- 2913, 2015 N. Y. Misc LEXIS 50 (N. Sur Ct Jan. 13, 2015) 12 Mancheski v. Gabellz? Grp. Capital Partners, 39 499 (2d Dep?t 2007) 6, 9, 12 Nixon 3). Warner Commc ?ns, Inc, 435 US. 589 (1978) 7 I Shiles v. News Syndicate 27 9 (1970). 9, 14 Stevenson v. News Syndicate Co, 276 AD. 614 (2d Dep?t), 302 NY. 81 (1950) 10, 14, 15 Sam Mary Haas. Corp. v. Jo/Sal Mitt. Corp. 100 901 (2d Dep?t 1984) 13 ii NY. Domestic Relations Law 235 .. . 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 202..passim 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 216.1 . . . ..passim CDUNTER-OUESTION PRESENTED New York law protects the privacy interests of parties to records relating to matrimonial proceedings. See NY. Domestic Relations Law 235 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Independently, the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and the County Court vests courts broad discretion. to seal court records upon a ?nding of good cause. See 22 N.Y.C.R.R. The allegations in this fraud action touch upon con?dential matrimonial proceeding materials containing sensitive information. The Court found good cause to seal certain documents taken from the record of that matrimonial proceeding, along with certain other documents that closely relate to that proceeding, including documents that discussed the care and custody of minor children. The question presented is whether the making of this sealing order was Within the IAS Court?s discretion. Plaintifmeespondent William J. O?Reilly respectfully asks this Court to answer the question in the af?rmative. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff?Respondent William I. O?Reilly brought this action for fraud against Defendant~Appellant Michael N. Klar, his ex?wife?s divorce attorney. Klar moved to dismiss the action and, in conjunction with that motion, Klar sought leave to publicly file certain confidential materials arising from O?Reilly?s prior matrimonial litigation. O?Reilly and Intervenor=Respondent Maureen McPhilmy - Klar?s ex?client opposed this request and moved to seal the documents. lntervenor?Appellant Gizmodo Media Group LLC (?Gizmodo?) moved to intervene for the purpose of opposing O?Reilly?s motion to seal. The Court ordered that most, but not all, of the documents be ?led under seal (the ?Sealing Order?). (R. 4~ 2.) The Sealing Order was a provident exercise of the IAS Court?s broad discretion to control its own records. Notably, the IAS Court reviewed each of the proposed ?lings in camera and determined that some, but not all, of the documents should be filed under seal. The IAS Court found that ?where matrimonial records become relevant? to a secondary action such as this one, ?a limited order sealing matrimonial documents may properly issue.? (R. 7.) The IAS Court further found that no compelling public interest overrode the privacy interests in maintaining con?dentiality in the matrimonial litigation ?lings and related documents. Nothing Gizniodo argues points to any error, let alone an abuse of discretion, committed by the IAS Court. In this appeal, Gizmodo primarily advances an argument relying on the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not elevate Gizmodo?s purported interest in O?Reilly and McPhilmy?s matrimonial proceeding records above the sort of ?mere curiosity? that courts have regularly found insuf?cient to overcome New York?s public policy against disclosure of the records of matrimonial proceedings. Gizrnodo also argues that the Court made no factual findings. (Brief for lntervenoruAppellant Gizmodo Media Group, LLC (?Gizmodo ll?l3.) In fact, the IAS Court carefully parsed between those documents that merited sealing and those that did not, and provided reasons for its decision either to grant or deny sealing. (R. 841.) Gizrnodo also asserts that the IAS Court purported failed to consider the public interest in the O?Reilly and McPhilmy?s con?dential matrimonial records. But the IAS Court recognized and expressly weighed the public right of access, and found that these considerations did not trump the clearly established privacy interest that parties to a matrimonial proceeding hold in the records of that proceeding and other sensitive information. (R. 7-8.) The IAS Court?s Sealing Order was a proper exercise of its discretion, and this Court should af?rm. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts relating to this appeal are limited. This action concerns an alleged fraud perpetrated by Klar during his representation of McPhilmy in a con?dential and sealed matrimonial proceeding. (R. l7=24.) With respect to the matrimonial proceeding, as well as any other dispute arising out their marriage, O?Reilly and McPhilrny entered into a con?dentiality agreement and agreed that any such dispute should be sealed in order to shield their children from the pressures of unwanted and intrusive publicity surrounding the separation, to the extent permitted by law (the ?Con?dentiality Agreement?). (R. 48-51 at 4-5.) Klar also signed a confidentiality acknowledgement Where he agreed to keep private the sensitive information at issue in the divorce proceedings. (R. 52-5 3 at In particular, Klar acknowledged that McPhilmy ?has requested that [Klar], as her lawyer, and in accordance with the The New York Rules of Professional Conduct . keep con?dential all information defined, designated and marked as Con?dential information pursuant to the [Con?dentiality (R. 52 at 1-) in November 2016, O?Reilly commenced this action by ?ling a summons with notice. (R. 15.) in December 2016, O?Reilly filed his complaint. (R. 17?24.) in January 2017, Klar ?led a motion to dismiss, and, in conjunction with that motion, sought leave to file publicly confidential documents he possessed as a result of his representation of McPhilmy in the matrimonial proceeding, which he attached to his motion to dismiss. (R. 5 7?59.) O?Reilly opposed this request and sought an order ?sealing all documents and ?lings that refer to materials that are confidential pursuant to the [Con?dentiality Agreement], or already sealed in another court action, any future motion or pleadings in this action that disclose or refer to such con?dential material.? (R. 60.) In February 2017, Gizmodo ?led a motion to intervene to oppose sealing of records. (R. 62-63.) in May 2017, the IAS Court entered the Sealng Order, which sealed some but not all of the documents filed along with Klar?s motion to dismiss. (R. 444.) The Court reviewed each of the applicable legal standards implicated, including the relevant rules governing access to court records, and found that O?Reilly and McPhilmy possessed an interest in maintaining con?dentiality in their previously~sealed matrimonial proceeding records in accordance with New York?s stated public policy. (R. 5-6.) The 1A8 Court found that, ?the public right 999 of access is 6not absolute and that in a ?secondary action where matrimonial records become relevant, a limited order sealing matrimonial documents may properly issue.? (R. 7.) The IAS Court then reviewed each of the exhibits and made a ruling as to each, sealing those ?with personal information concerning the parties? and ?their children? and those with sensitive information that had a ?close connection with the matrimonial action.? (R. 9-11.) The documents subject con?dentiality under Sealing Order include: (1) the separation agreement between O?Reilly and McPhilmy; (2) correspondence between O?Reilly and McPhilmy concerning the care and Visitation of their children; (3) correspondence between counsel concerning the matrimonial action and the care and vitiation of the O?Reilly and McPhilmy?s children; and (4) court records ?led in the matrimonial action. (R. 9?11.) However, the US Court did not order all of proposed ?lings to be sealed and permitted several documents to be filed without seal or redaction because such documents did not implicate the privacy interests expressed in DRL 235 and 22 (R. 9~1l.) Therea?er, Gizmodo ?led this notice of appeal. (R. 1. A COURTS DECISION T0 SEAL ITS RECORDS IS REVIEWED FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION The Uniform Civil Rules provide that a court may, upon a showing of good cause, restrict access to court records: Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard. 22 N.Y.C.R.R, Under this rolea a court ?must make an independent determination? of good cause and must ?weigh? the interests of the public against the interests of the parties.? Mancheskz? v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 499, 502 (2d Dep?t 2007). ?[S]ince there is no absolute de?nition, good cause, in essence, ?boils down to . . . the prudent exercise of the court?s discretion.? Id, (citation omitted). This deferential abusewotldiscretion standard stems from a strong presumption of broad latitude afforded to the trial court?s decision?making over its 6 own records and proceedings. See Hynes v. Karassik, 47 659, 664 (1979) (stating trial courts have discretionary authority with respect to their own records); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc ?ns, Inn, 435 US. 589, 599 (1978) (noting that ?the decision as to access [to judicial records] is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case?). 11. THE COURT DID NOT ABUSE ETS DESCRETION IN ENTERING THE SEALING ORDER The IAS [Court here acted well within its discretion'by ordering that certain documents from a sealed, con?dential matrimonial proceeding should remain con?dential in a related tort action, along with certain other documents that referred to con?dential matrimonial information, including the care of children. The IAS Court undertook a detailed review, pursuant to 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 216.1, to determine whether ?good cause? was established with respect to each document requested to be sealed. (R. 8-41). After carefuily weighing the interests of the public against the interests of O?Reilly and McPhilrny in maintaining confidentiality in their sealed matrimonial records, and related documents, the Court found ?good cause? existed for sealing some, but not all, of the documents. Nothing in Gizmodo?s appeal demonstrates any error by the IAS Court, let alone any abuse of discretion by the Court. A. The 1A8 Court Made A Factual Good Cause Analysis With Respect Te Each Document That It Ordered Sealed Contrary to Gizmodo?s argument, the IAS Court made a narrowly tailored factual finding of good cause for the documents it ordered sealed. indeed, the IAS Court could have sealed the record in ?whole? upon a showing of good cause. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Here, however, the IAS Court undertook a detailed review to determine whether good cause was established with regard to each document requested to be sealed. (R. 8-9.) As the Sealing Order sets forth, after carefully weighing the interests of the public against the interests of the Parties, the IAS found ?good cause? for the sealing of some, but not all, of the documents. (R. 8~ 11.) In fact, after reviewing each document, the IAS Court did not seal the entire record and directed thatcertain documents be made publicly available. (R. 849.) The documents sealed in this case relate directly to the matrimonial litigation. With respect to these documents, the IAS Court reasoned that Domestic Relations Law 235 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 202.5(e) manifest the State?s strong public policy against disclosure of records relating to matrimonial proceedings. (R. 5-8.) The IAS Court also made speci?c ?nding as to each sealed document, noting, for example, that the separation agreement ?contains personal information concerning the parties thereto and their children,? and that certain correspondence ?reference in detail certain aspects of the separation agreement, the relationship. and the care and Visitation with the children.? (R. 940.) 8 Gizmodo?s argument that the Sealing Order is overbroad is belied by the Sealing Order itself, which carefully pars-ed the documents and ordered that some, but not all, should be filed under seal. See Mancheskz?, 39 at 502 (upholding a sealing order where ?the court determined that only certain documents would be sealed?). Accordingly, there is no basis to disturb the Sealing Order for failing to provide written findings as to the good cause for sealing some of the documents under 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 216.1. B, New York Law Protects The Con?dentiality Of Records 0f Matrimonial Proceedings For more than 150 years, it has been the lavv of this state that the records of matrimonial proceedings are not accessible to the public or the media. See Shiles 12. News Syndicate Ca, 27 9, 14 (1970) Legislature has, at least since 1847 made it plain that in matrimonial actions the balance of convenience is in favor of the individual and that in the case of papers filed in such actions the public interest is not served by publicizing them but by sealing them and prohibiting their examination by the public.? (citations omitted?. Today, this policy is codified in ?Section 235 of the Domestic Relations Law, which prohibits the taking of copies, or even the inspection, of the records of matrimonial proceedings by anyone other than the parties or their counsel, manifests a clear legislative design that those proceedings be kept secret and con?dential.? 1d; Applehead Pictures LLC v. Perelman, 80 181, 192 (lst Dep?t 2010); 9 Stevenson 12. News Syndicate Ca, 276 AD. 614 (2d Dep?t), a 302 NY. 81 (1950) (?To publish broadcast the painful details of a divorce case faiis to serve any useful purpose in the community. . . The protections of Domestic Relations Law Section 235 apply with full force when a party in a nonamatrimonial civil action seeks to file the sealed records of a matrimonial proceeding. See Applehead, 80 at 193 (?As a practical matter, if Perelman had ?led those documents separately, and sought a limited order requesting that the confidentiality of those documents be maintained, such relief could appropriately have been granted.? (citing D.R.L. 235(1)) Indeed, 22 requires a party in a civil action to ?omit or redact any of the documents or testimony in a matrimonial action protected by Domestic Relations Law section 235 or evidence sealed by the court in such an action which are attached as exhibits or referenced in the papers ?led in any other civil action.? In this regard, Gizmodo does not argue that the IAS Court erred in applying the policy behind Domestic Relations Law 235 to this proceeding. (R. 7.) Indeed, Gizmodo avoids acknowledging this well~settled New York public policy in this appeal. Rather, Gizmodo stresses throughout its appeal the First Amendment presumes access to court records. (Gizmodo Br. at 69.) But, Gizmodo?s First Amendment argument is a nonasequitur: there is simply no error in the MS Court?s determination that Gizmodo?s First Amendment rights are 10 quali?ed and can be overridden by New York?s public policy in keeping matrimonial records con?dential. See Danzz?ger v. Hearst Corp. 304 NY. 244, 248 (1952) (finding under predecessor to DRL 235 there was no violation to the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press). Gizmodo?s omission in addressing New York?s public policy is fatal to its appeal because that is the basis upon which the IAS Court concluded ?good cause? existed. As demonstrated above, the underlying policy consideration of Domestic Relations Law 235(1) fully supports the Sealing Order and Gizmodo makes no attempt to argue to the contrary. Because of this, Gizrnodo ignores the recognized privacy interests that the Court of Appeals acknowledges outweigh any public interest in those documents. Therefore, Gizmodo points to no error in the IAS Court?s ?nding that there were significant privacy interests in maintaining the confidentiality in matrimonial proceeding records. A C. The Sealing Order Also Protects Third Parties From Harm The Supreme Court also properly entered the Sealing Order because it protected McPhilmy and her children from unwanted media attention and extreme emotional distress. As noted above, O?Reilly and McPhilmy recognized the potential for extreme emotional distress from the unwanted and intrusive publicity surrounding the disputes between them and agreed to strict con?dentiality to guard against such distress. in fact, their divorce proceeding was prosecuted ll anonymously and under seal to prevent harm to O?Reilly and McPhilmy?s children. (R. 29, if 12.) Because of these concerns, the court in the divorce proceedings closed the courtroom to the public in consideration of the best interests of O?Reilly and McPhilrny?s children. (163.). New York courts readily find good cause to seal court records to protect third parties. For example, in Mancheskz?, this Court held that the sealing of ?third-x party ?nancial information? was warranted because ?disclosure could impinge on the privacy rights of third parties who clearly are not litigants herein.? 39 at 502. This concern for the privacy of third parties is at its height when the third parties involved are minor children. In a recent decision, the New York County Surrogate?s Court agreed to seal portions of the record in a matter involving judicial approval of two contracts entered into between a music company and a . ?fteen year old. In re Skutch Music Pub] Inc. (Dias), No. 2013-2913, 2015 NY. Misc. LEXIS 50 (NY. Surr. Ct. Jan. 13, 2015). The court noted that, while ?the usual rule? favors ?open court records,? there are ?special circumstances which establish that such disclosure would be harmful to the parties.? Id. at The court found that one such ?special circumstance? includes the protection of children.? Id. 12 Due to the notoriety of O?Reilly, public and media access to the ?lings in this proceeding assures a media spectacle, as evidenced by Gizmodo?s conduct. The risk of exposure and harm to O?Reilly?s children is not speculative, it is a matter of fact that warranted the closing of the courtroom in the divorce proceedings,1 (R. 29, 1] 12.) Nothing short of the Sealing Order can adequately protect the children against allegations that may be adduced in a hotly contested litigation involving accusations of aiding and abetting fraud in the. inducement of the Separation Agreement. D. The IAS Court Appropriately Balanced the Public Interest against the Interests of the Parties Beyond platitudes about the First Amendment, Gizmodo articulates nothing A demonstrating that the IAS Court abused its discretion ?nding that there was no meaningful public interest outweighing the privacy interests of O?Reilly, McPhilrny and their children. The fact that O?Reilly is a public ?gure is not persuasive. (Gizmodo Br. at 17.) public figure does not . . . surrender all right to privacy. Although his privacy is necessarily limited by the newsworthiness of his activities, he retains the ?independent right to have [his] personality, even if newsworthy, free from 1 This Court may take judicial notice of these other court determinations sealing the records in the matrimonial action. See Sam Mary Hons. Corp. v. Jo/Sal Mkt. Corp, 100 901, 903 (2d Dep?t 1984), afd, 64 1107 (1985) (?in New York, courts may take judicial notice of a record in the same court of either the pending matter or of some other action. Judicial 9; notice may also be taken of all prior proceedings of a case although held in another court of the State.? (citations omitted?. 13 commercial exploitation at the hands of another.?? Brinkley v. Casablancos, 80 428, 433 (lst Dep?t 1981) (quoting Booth v. Curtis Pub! ?g Ca, 15 343, 351 (lst Dep?t 1962)). As the IAS Court recognized, the ?public interest? in this case is exactly the sort of ?mere curiosity? that has been condemned by courts in this state. (R, 7 (citing Stevenson, 276 AD. at 614)). See also Grain Comma ?ns, Inc. v. Hughes, 135 351, 352 (lst Dep?t 1987), 74 626 (1989) (affirming sealing order where there was ?no showing of any legitimate public concern, as opposed to more curiosity, to counterbalance the strong public interest in encouraging the settlement of private litigation and the resultant prejudice to the settling parties?); In re Estate of R. R. Jr., 153 Misc. 2d 747, 749 (Surr. Ct. Rensselaer Cty. 1992) (?nding that ?the public interest would seem limited to more curiosity as to the amount of the settlement,? theparties? Vdefsires?for 7 privacy weighed against the lackof legitimate public interest, and there was ?good cause? for the sealing of a settlement agreement). Gizrnodo?s argument that the public has an interest in a ?powerful high? profile plaintiff? whose private conduct allegedly differs from public stances is without merit. Notably, Gizmodo misconstrues the principle behind the presumption of public access to court proceedings, which serves to protect not the public?s interest in fair adjudication, not the public?s interest in routing out hypocrisy, and certainly not the public?s curiosity about the family affairs of a 1,4: . prominent individual. See Shiles, 27 NY. at 14. (describing ?the publicinterest in having proceedings of courts of justice public, not secret, for the greater security thus given for the proper administration of justice?); Danco Labs, Ltd. v. Chem. Works ofGedeon Richter, Ltd, 274 l, 6 (lst Dep?t 2000) (?Among the values of access in civil cases is that ?the bright light cast upon the judicial process by public observation diminishes the possibilities for injustice, incompetence, perjury, and fraud. Furthermore, the very openness of the process should provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness. (citation omitted?. Further, Widespread public awareness kindled by media saturation does not legitimize mere curiosity. See Gannett Co. v. De Pasquale, 43 370, 381 (1977). Gizmodo?s only aim is to pro?t from the details of O?Reilly?is personal I life. Courts should not cater to this base level of public intrigue. See SreVenson, 276 AD. at 618 (?The judicial records of the state should always be accessible to . the people for all proper purposes, under reasonable restrictions as to the time and mode of examining the same, but they should not be used to gratify private spite or promote public While the public may have an interest in transparency of these proceedings, (Gizrnodo Br. at 17), the Sealing Order is limited to those documents relating to the sealed matrimonial litigation. Thus, contrary in to Gizmodo?s argument, the Sealing Order does not infringe on the public?s interest in transparency in this litigation. Gizrnodo offers no argument asserting that there is'a legitimate public interest in the contents of the sealed documents. Finally, even if Gimodo possessed a legitimate public interest in monitoring the judicial process, it still would not outweigh the private interests at hand. Indeed, courts have held that even legitimate public interests, driven. by more than mere curiosity, can be overcome by the parties" private interests. Dance Labs, Ltd, 274 at 6. The private interests of O?Reilly and McPhilmy are well-?established by New York public policy: they have a vested interest in protecting not only the privacy of their matrimonial litigation records, but also the wellwbeing of their children. On the other hand, Gizrnodo sets forth no overriding public interest outweighing those established privacy interests here. CONCLUSION Although Gizrnodo possesses a qualified right to access a court?s ?le, that right is quali?ed and not absolute. New York law empowers a court to exercise its discretion to limit access to a court file when there is ?good cause? present. After considering to various interests present and reviewing proposed court ?lings in camera, the IAS Court found good cause to restrict public access to certain documents ?led with the EAS Court. Gizrnodo points to no error in law or fact that suggests an improvident exercise of discretion on the part of the IAS Court. 16 Accordingly, O?Reilly respectfully submits that this Court should af?rm the IAS Court?s Sealing Order. Dated: January 26, 2018 New York, New York 17 Respectfully submitted, HOGUET NEWMAN REGAL KENNEY, LLP By: Fredric S, Newman Andrew N. Boume 10 East 40?? Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-689-8808 Attomeysfor Plaintz?-Respondem William J. O?Reilly CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to 22 that the foregoing brief was prepared using Microsoft Word. Type: A proportionally spaced typeface was used as follows: Name of typeface: Times New Roman Point size: 14 Footnote point size: 12 Line spacing: Double Word Count: The tetal nurnber of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, table of authorities, proof of service, certi?cate of compliance, or any authorized addendum containing statutes, rules, regulations, etc, is 3,858 . Dated: January 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York HOGUET NEWMAN REGAL KENNEY, LLP By: Fredric S. Newman Andrew N. Bourne 10 East401th Street, 35th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-689?8808 Attorneys for Plaim?Respondem? William 1 O?Reilly 18