Kurtanidze v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.

Background

Defendants Mizuho Bank, Ltd. and Mizuho Americas Services LLC asked the court for permission to file three exhibits under seal in support of their motion for summary judgment. The exhibits concerned Ms. Shum, a person previously employed by Mizuho who was not a party to the case:

- Ms. Shum’s 2018 performance review; - Ms. Shum’s 2019 performance review; and - Ms. Shum’s promotion nomination form.

The defendants’ letter stated that other summary-judgment exhibits would be redacted under the court’s individual rules and the District’s electronic-filing privacy policy because they contained medical or financial information. The letter’s specific request for permission to seal concerned the three documents relating to Ms. Shum.

Parties’ Position and Legal Standard

The defendants argued that the three exhibits contained sensitive information about a nonparty’s job performance and internal evaluations. They relied on the court’s usual access-to-court-records framework, which considers whether a filing is a judicial document, the strength of the public’s interest in accessing it, and whether competing interests outweigh that access. The letter acknowledged that documents filed with a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents, but argued that the privacy interests of a nonparty and the traditionally private nature of employment evaluations justified sealing them.

Ruling

The court marked the motion “GRANTED.” The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion pending at Docket 106. The order did not separately state a ruling about the additional redactions or sealed copies described in the defendants’ letter.