Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.

Background

Tanseer Kazi and Linda Scheid filed an administrative motion to seal parts of their motion for class certification and the evidence supporting it. They relied on PNC Bank, N.A.’s designation of the materials as confidential. PNC submitted a declaration addressing some of the documents.

The court explained that filings connected more than indirectly to the merits of a case may be sealed only upon a showing of compelling reasons. It also explained that a sealing request must be narrowly tailored to cover only material that can properly be kept from public view. The court determined that the class-certification motion met the standard requiring compelling reasons.

Rulings on the Plaintiffs’ Class-Certification Materials

The court denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion as to the redacted portions of their supporting memorandum and Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, and 1-E because PNC’s declaration did not address those materials.

The court granted the motion as to Exhibit 1-D, PNC’s Mortgage Originations Incentive Plan. The court found compelling reasons to seal the plan’s particular technical details because disclosure could create a competitive disadvantage, and it determined that redacting the plan would not be practical.

The court denied without prejudice the motion as to Exhibits 1-F and 1-H, deposition transcripts of Jason Mackenzie and Michael Smiles. The court stated that particular sales-commission rates and possibly specific confidential information about PNC’s training programs might qualify for sealing, but it found that redaction could protect that information without sealing the entire transcripts. PNC was permitted to file its own narrowly tailored sealing motion by January 29, 2020. The plaintiffs were ordered not to file the transcripts publicly until further order.

Ruling on PNC’s Opposition Materials

The court found that PNC had sought to seal too much of its opposition brief and attachments. It held that PNC had not shown compelling reasons to keep basic compensation information—such as the fact that loan officers could receive monthly incentive pay—under seal. The court also noted that some information, including the number of PNC loan officers employed in California, could largely be determined from public sources.

The court granted PNC’s administrative motion as to Exhibits 4 and 5 to Janet Groh’s declaration, which were confidential settlement agreements. It also granted the motion as to Exhibits 1 through 7 to Michael Smiles’s declaration, which were plan documents containing technical details.

The court denied without prejudice PNC’s motion as to all other materials covered by that request. It found that PNC had either improperly sought to seal those materials in their entirety or proposed redactions that were too broad. PNC could file a renewed, narrowly tailored motion by January 29, 2020. The court stated that PNC faced a heavy burden to justify redacting anything beyond particular numerical figures and monetary values.

Ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Reply Materials

The court denied the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal parts of their reply brief and supporting documents. The plaintiffs’ request was based only on PNC’s assertion of confidentiality, and PNC had not filed the responsive declaration required by the court’s local rule. The plaintiffs were instructed to file the materials publicly without redactions between January 27 and February 3, 2020. If PNC’s failure to respond was inadvertent, PNC could file its own sealing motion before January 27, but it would have to explain the failure and show good cause. The plaintiffs were not to file the materials publicly until the court ruled on any such motion.

Disposition

The court issued different rulings on the three administrative sealing motions: the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion was denied as to some materials, granted as to Exhibit 1-D, and denied without prejudice as to Exhibits 1-F and 1-H; PNC’s motion was granted as to specified settlement agreements and plan documents and denied without prejudice as to the remaining materials; and the plaintiffs’ reply-materials motion was denied. Judge Joseph C. Spero did not rule on the merits of class certification.