Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., Judge Stein approved proposed redactions to protect confidential business information and directed the parties to replace public filings.
The parties, the Clerk of Court, the transcriber of the August 20, 2024 discovery-conference transcript, and the public versions of the affected court filings.
What happened
In Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., the parties agreed to substantially narrow Plaintiffs’ requests to keep documents sealed and to limit redactions in documents filed publicly. Defendants also proposed limited redactions to a transcript of a discovery conference.
The court found that sealing and redacting information was justified to protect Defendants’ confidential and proprietary business information. It approved all proposed redactions to the discovery-conference transcript, directed the parties to submit publicly usable versions of several exhibits and a proposed replacement order, and directed the Clerk to close the three pending sealing motions.
United States Magistrate Judge Gary Stein issued the order on October 8, 2024.
The detailed version
- Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01479
- John Cronan
- Oct. 8, 2024
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter after meeting and conferring about Plaintiffs’ pending motions to seal. Their agreement significantly reduced the materials proposed to be kept entirely under seal and limited the number of redactions in documents that would remain publicly available. Defendants also proposed limited redactions to the publicly available version of the transcript from an August 20, 2024 discovery conference.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that sealing was warranted to protect Defendants’ confidential and proprietary business information. It found that the parties’ proposal was narrowly tailored and identified specific reasons for sealing or redacting particular information.
Order
The parties were directed to submit publicly fileable versions of Exhibits 1 through 11 with black redactions, along with a proposed order directing the Clerk of Court to replace Plaintiffs’ existing public filings with those versions. Documents proposed for public filing in their entirety were to be unsealed through the proposed order, with references to both their public and sealed docket numbers.
The parties were not required to submit a public version of the August 20 discovery-conference transcript. Instead, they were directed to provide the order and proposed redactions to the transcriber. The court approved all of the parties’ proposed redactions to that transcript. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions pending at Docket Nos. 97, 106, and 113.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.