Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Michele Metcalf v. TransPerfect Translations International Inc., Judge Parker granted redaction and sealing requests protecting employee and class-member information.
The ruling affects the parties, the public’s access to the two exhibits, non-party employees whose names and compensation information appear in the documents, and class members whose identifying information appears in the chart.
What happened
Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson asked to seal or redact two exhibits filed while opposing TransPerfect’s motion to decertify the class. TransPerfect supported keeping unredacted versions sealed because the exhibits contained confidential business information, employee names, compensation information, and class members’ identifying information.
The court explained that filed materials are generally presumed open to the public, but privacy and competitively sensitive business information can outweigh that presumption. It found that employee compensation and names, along with class-member and employee identifying information, should be redacted.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to seal. The unredacted exhibits must remain sealed, and the parties must publicly file redacted versions by July 21, 2025.
The detailed version
- Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10104
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 7, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed two exhibits with papers opposing Defendant TransPerfect Translations International Inc.’s motion to decertify the class. Plaintiffs previously moved to seal or redact the exhibits. The court denied that request without prejudice and asked TransPerfect, which had marked the documents confidential, to explain why they should be sealed.
TransPerfect then requested that unredacted versions remain sealed and that redacted versions be filed publicly. It stated that the exhibits contained confidential and proprietary business information, including names of non-party employees, as well as personally identifying information about class members.
Legal Framework
The court explained that the common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It applied a three-step analysis: determining whether the materials are judicial documents, assessing the strength of the public-access presumption, and deciding whether competing interests outweigh that presumption. Privacy interests, protection of third parties, employee compensation information, and competitively sensitive business information may qualify as interests that justify sealing. Any sealing must be supported by specific findings and narrowly limited to the information requiring protection.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the requested redactions were proper. For the email chain, identified as ECF No. 443-5 in the opinion’s discussion, employee names and individual compensation information were to be redacted. For the chart, identified as ECF No. 443-6, class-member and employee names and other personally identifying information were to be redacted. The court stated that privacy interests in compensation information outweighed even a strong presumption of public access.
Disposition
The court granted the parties’ motion to seal. The unredacted versions at ECF Nos. 442-5 and 442-6 were to remain sealed, and redacted copies were required to be filed on the public docket by Monday, July 21, 2025.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.