Loh Xiao Han v. Interexchange, Inc.

Background

InterExchange, Inc. marked two documents as “Confidential” under a protective order. The documents concerned the employment history of non-parties, including a former plaintiff who had expressed a desire no longer to be associated with the litigation. InterExchange had removed its confidentiality designations from three other documents but maintained the designations on these two.

InterExchange argued that the documents contained personal information and that the parties could file them under seal without court approval under Rule 4(B)(i) of the judge’s individual practices. Plaintiffs’ counsel had filed a letter about the confidentiality dispute, which was docketed at Dkt. 164.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that requests to seal court records must be evaluated against both the common-law right of public access to judicial documents and the public’s qualified First Amendment right to attend proceedings and access judicial documents. Those rights are not absolute, and courts must balance the presumption of access against competing considerations, including third parties’ privacy interests.

The court concluded that the privacy interests justified targeted redactions. It did not find that the documents as a whole warranted sealing.

Ruling

Judge Rochon ordered plaintiffs to file the documents at Dkts. 165 and 166 with targeted redactions omitting personally identifying information, including names, personal email addresses, and dates of birth. The court ruled that the remainder of the documents did not warrant sealing and directed the clerk to terminate Dkt. 164.