Schmidt v. DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc.

Background

The parties filed a Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. They agreed that specified documents should remain under seal. Those documents had been filed in connection with DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s motion for summary judgment. District Judge Nancy E. Brasel had previously granted that motion in part and denied it in part.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a presumption of public access. That presumption is stronger when documents played a material role in the court’s decision or are important to the public’s ability to understand the decision. In that situation, the party seeking continued sealing must provide compelling reasons. For documents that did not materially contribute to the decision, the court applies a less demanding standard and considers whether there is a countervailing reason against public access.

Uncited documents

Judge Brasel’s summary-judgment order did not cite the following documents: ECF Nos. 111-3, 111-5–13, 111-17–18, 112, 112-1–7, 112-9–17, 117, 117-1–5, 119, and 119-1–6. The parties said these documents contained confidential business information, confidential human-resources information, or confidential employee-compensation information. The court found those reasons sufficient under the less demanding standard and ordered the documents to remain under seal.

Documents cited or relied on in the earlier decision

The parties also sought to keep sealed ECF No. 108 and ECF Nos. 111, 111-1–2, 111-4, 111-14–16, 111-19, 112-8, and 121. These documents were cited or relied on in Judge Brasel’s summary-judgment order, so the court applied the stronger sealing standard.

The court recognized that confidential business information and sensitive human-resources information can justify sealing. But it found that the defendants had offered only unsupported assertions and had not provided specific evidence or compelling reasons. The court also found that some of the information was needed to understand the summary-judgment decision, including information about the plaintiff’s offer and training, regional-manager positions, performance reviews, promotion, firing approval, and the number and sex of regional managers in the plaintiff’s region.

The court further determined that compensation information was central to the plaintiff’s equal-pay claim and the parties’ summary-judgment arguments. It therefore held that compensation amounts could not be redacted. To protect privacy, the parties could redact nonparty employee names and replace them with initials or pseudonyms. They could also redact addresses, phone numbers, birthdates, Social Security numbers, and similar personal identifying information. The plaintiff’s name had to remain available to the public.

The court also authorized redaction of intellectual property, trade secrets, customer or supplier lists, distribution methods, marketing strategies, and similarly highly sensitive nonpublic business information.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted in part and denied in part the Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The Clerk was directed to keep the uncited documents listed above under seal. The parties were ordered to file minimally redacted versions of ECF Nos. 108, 111, 111-1–2, 111-4, 111-14–16, 111-19, 112-8, and 121 by August 19, 2024. If they failed to do so, the court stated that it would order the Clerk to unseal those documents in full within 21 days under the cited local rule.