Nguyen-Wilhite v. Tapestry, Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:23-cv-03339
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nguyen-Wilhite v. Tapestry, Judge Rochon denied Tapestry’s request to seal class-certification exhibits and ordered public versions filed.
Tapestry must make public versions of the four exhibits, subject to permitted redactions of personally identifying information. Nguyen-Wilhite and the public will have access to those versions.
What happened
In Nguyen-Wilhite v. Tapestry, Inc., Tapestry asked to keep four exhibits supporting the pending motion for class certification from public view. Tapestry described the exhibits as confidential internal business records concerning background-check procedures and its analysis of the plaintiff’s records.
The court denied the request because the exhibits were judicial documents considered for the class-certification motion, and Tapestry had not identified specific harm that would result from disclosure. The court also found that sealing entire exhibits was too broad, particularly because much of their content appeared in the parties’ briefs.
Judge Rochon ordered the parties to file publicly available versions of the exhibits by February 14, 2025. The parties may redact personally identifying information, such as phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at Docket Numbers 49, 51, and 57.
The detailed version
- Nguyen-Wilhite v. Tapestry, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-03339
- Rochon
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Tapestry asked the court to seal four exhibits that Nguyen-Wilhite planned to file in support of her motion for class certification: Exhibits 2, 5, 8, and 10. Tapestry characterized the materials as confidential internal business records concerning its background-check procedures and internal analysis of Nguyen-Wilhite’s records. The parties had narrowed the sealing request from eight documents to four.
Court’s analysis
The court treated the exhibits as judicial documents because they had been submitted and considered for the pending class-certification motion. Judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access. The court found that Tapestry had asserted that the exhibits contained sensitive and competitive business information but had not identified any specific harm that would result from public disclosure. The court also noted that much of the exhibits’ contents had been described or quoted in the parties’ briefs.
The court further found that Tapestry’s request was not narrowly tailored. Rather than proposing limited redactions of commercially sensitive information, Tapestry had asked to seal the entire exhibits.
Ruling
Judge Rochon denied Tapestry’s request to seal the exhibits. The parties were ordered to file publicly available versions by February 14, 2025. The court allowed redaction of personally identifying information, including phone numbers, email addresses, and physical addresses. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at Docket Numbers 49, 51, and 57.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.