Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Michele Metcalf v. TransPerfect Translations International Inc., Judge Parker denied discovery requests, denied sealing motions without prejudice, and kept two documents sealed.
Plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson, defendant TransPerfect Translations International Inc., and the individual employees whose compensation or personal contact information may appear in the filings.
What happened
In Michele Metcalf v. TransPerfect Translations International Inc., the court ruled on the parties’ discovery and document-sealing requests after a January 15, 2025 case-management conference.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to use confidential deposition testimony and emails in arbitration demands. It also denied the defendant’s requests for a work-hours spreadsheet and personal, non-work-related communications because those requests were not proportional to the needs of the case.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ sealing motions without prejudice, allowing them to refile with only individual employees’ compensation information and personal email addresses redacted. Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the Clerk to terminate specified motions and keep two documents under seal.
The detailed version
- Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10104
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 15, 2025
Background
The order followed a January 15, 2025 case-management conference and addressed discovery and sealing motions in the putative class action brought by Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson against TransPerfect Translations International Inc.
Discovery rulings
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to reference deposition testimony and emails designated confidential in this case in arbitration demands.
The court also denied the defendant’s requests to compel production of two categories of documents: (1) a spreadsheet that Plaintiff Lawson created while employed by the defendant calculating the hours she worked, and (2) personal, non-work-related communications sent by Plaintiffs Metcalf and Lawson at times they contend they were performing compensable work for the defendant. The court denied those requests because they were not proportional to the needs of the case.
Sealing rulings and disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ sealing motions at ECF Nos. 370 and 384 without prejudice because they did not meet the standard for sealing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The plaintiffs may refile the motions with only information concerning an individual employee’s compensation and individual employees’ personal contact information, including personal email addresses, redacted.
The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 370, 371, 372, and 384. It also directed the Clerk to keep the documents at ECF Nos. 371 and 385 under seal. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.