In re Waste Management Securities Litigation

Background

Lead Plaintiffs moved to seal their memorandum supporting class certification and the appointment of class representatives and class counsel, along with an expert report by Professor Steven P. Feinstein. They sought sealing because those materials referred to data that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) had designated “Confidential.” FINRA filed a letter supporting the request and stated, in substance, that the data was properly designated confidential under the parties’ confidentiality agreement and stipulated protective order.

Defendants later moved to seal their memorandum opposing the class-certification motion and an expert report by Lucy P. Allen. Their request concerned references to redacted portions of the Lead Plaintiffs’ filings.

Legal standard

The court applied a three-part test for sealing judicial documents. First, it asked whether the material was relevant to the court’s work and therefore subject to the presumed right of public access. Second, it assessed the strength of that presumption based on the material’s role in the court’s exercise of its authority and its value to people monitoring the federal courts. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests, including privacy interests.

The court stated that filings related to class certification are judicial documents because they are relevant to the judicial function. They receive a strong presumption of public access because they are used to determine litigants’ substantive legal rights. A court may seal such materials only after making specific findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. FINRA’s confidentiality designation and the protective order were not by themselves decisive.

Ruling and instructions

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the Lead Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ motions to file under seal are DENIED without prejudice to renew.

The order required the Lead Plaintiffs, by September 4, 2024, to file any renewed motion concerning materials they or FINRA sought to keep under seal. The Lead Plaintiffs also had to file sealed, unredacted versions with the proposed redactions highlighted and explain the basis for each request. The order allowed counsel to file a letter providing additional explanation or argument if needed.

The order required Defendants, by September 11, 2024, to file any renewed motion concerning materials they sought to keep under seal. Defendants likewise had to file sealed, unredacted versions with highlighted redactions and provide the basis for each request. The Clerk was directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 70 and 79 and to keep all currently sealed documents under seal while the parties could pursue renewed motions.