Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., Judge Stein granted Plaintiffs’ request to keep specified motion materials and exhibits under seal.
Plaintiffs Humberto Lozada and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Defendants TaskUs, Inc. and the other defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court materials.
What happened
In Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc., Plaintiffs Humberto Lozada and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System asked to file an unredacted letter motion, appendices, and exhibits under seal. The materials included excerpts from privilege logs and documents that Defendants had designated as confidential or highly confidential.
The parties agreed that the materials could remain sealed, and Plaintiffs did not oppose the confidentiality designations for purposes of the request. The court considered whether the interest in confidentiality outweighed the public’s interest in accessing the court documents.
Judge Stein granted the application and directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the unredacted letter motion, appendices, and exhibits under seal. The order addressed confidentiality and public access, not the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01479
- John Cronan
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Humberto Lozada and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System requested permission to file under seal the unredacted version of their September 25, 2024 letter motion, Appendices 1 through 5, and Exhibits 1 through 10. The appendices contained excerpts from privilege logs, and the exhibits contained documents produced by Defendants in the action.
Defendants had designated the materials as confidential or highly confidential discovery material under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The parties conferred about the request and agreed that the materials could be sealed. Defendants did not withdraw their confidentiality designations, although they indicated that they might do so later. Plaintiffs filed redacted versions and the materials under seal while awaiting the court’s ruling.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It found that Plaintiffs’ interest in preserving the documents’ confidentiality outweighed the public interest in full access to the judicial documents containing that information. The Clerk of Court was directed to maintain the unredacted letter motion, Appendices 1 through 5, and Exhibits 1 through 10 under seal.
This was an ancillary sealing order; the opinion did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.