Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Background

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging employment discrimination by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., TSMC North America Co. Ltd., TSMC Technology, Inc., TSMC Arizona Corporation, and TSMC Washington, LLC, collectively referred to as TSMC. Plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice of discrimination against people who are not of East Asian race, are not of Taiwanese or Chinese national origin, and are not citizens of Taiwan or China. The claims include race discrimination, disparate treatment, disparate impact, hostile work environment, and retaliation under federal statutes.

Plaintiffs intended to seek permission to file a proposed second amended complaint. TSMC filed an administrative motion asking the court to require plaintiffs to file paragraphs 204, 210, 240, 247, 248, 250, 251, 254, 258, 280, 288, 299, 318, 321, and 327 under seal. Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

Sealing standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the proposed complaint is the pleading on which the action is based, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking to seal records must provide specific factual reasons showing that secrecy interests outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.

TSMC argued that the challenged allegations were irrelevant or tangential to the discrimination claims, could confuse or mislead the public, and could harm TSMC’s operations and United States interests. TSMC also argued that it might later seek to strike the allegations. Plaintiffs responded that the allegations provided context and examples concerning TSMC’s treatment of workers and handling of safety or misconduct reports.

Ruling

The court expressed no view on the expected motion for leave to amend or on any expected motion to strike. It found that plaintiffs had articulated a rational basis for including the challenged allegations in the proposed complaint.

The court concluded that only paragraphs 204 and 210 warranted sealing. Those paragraphs describe alleged sexual assaults; although the alleged victims were not named, the alleged perpetrators were. The alleged perpetrators were not parties to the case, and plaintiffs did not provide a specific justification for publicly disclosing the allegations. The court found that the unproved allegations could cause serious reputational harm to the nonparty alleged perpetrators.

The court granted in part and denied in part TSMC’s motion to seal portions of the proposed second amended complaint. It granted the motion as to paragraphs 204 and 210 and denied it as to the remaining challenged paragraphs. If plaintiffs file their motion for leave to amend, they must file the allegations described in paragraphs 204 and 210 under seal. The unredacted version of the proposed complaint already filed as exhibits to TSMC’s sealing motion will remain under seal. The court also denied TSMC’s request to prohibit plaintiffs and their counsel from publicly discussing matters not under seal, subject to applicable rules concerning factual support, defamation, and professional conduct.