Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.
- Joseph Spero
- 3:18-cv-04810
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Judge Spero granted two sealing motions and granted the Class’s motion in part, requiring limited public filings.
PNC, Bank, N.A., the Class, and the public record of the case were affected. PNC’s two sealing motions were granted, while the Class’s sealing motion was granted in part and required specified public filings.
What happened
In Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A., the parties asked the court to seal materials connected to their competing motions for summary judgment. Because those materials were closely related to the case’s merits, the court required compelling reasons and narrowly tailored requests for sealing.
The court granted PNC’s two sealing motions. It granted the Class’s sealing motion in part, requiring the Class to file several exhibits publicly without redactions and to file a new public version of its summary-judgment memorandum with only specified passages redacted. The Class did not need to refile the deposition excerpt that PNC had already filed publicly.
Judge Joseph C. Spero also reminded both sides to clearly identify the portions omitted from publicly filed redacted documents. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A. · No. 3:18-cv-04810
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 21, 2021
Background
The parties filed three administrative motions to file materials under seal in connection with cross-motions for summary judgment. The court stated that materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for compelling reasons, and that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored.
Rulings on PNC’s motions
The court found that PNC showed compelling reasons to seal narrowly tailored portions of the materials covered by its January 15, 2021 motion, docket entry 157, and January 29, 2021 motion, docket entry 163. The court granted both motions.
Ruling on the Class’s motion
The Class sought to seal documents based only on PNC’s confidentiality designations and stated that it believed none of the information warranted sealing. PNC submitted a responsive declaration after the deadline in the local rule but before the court ruled on the sealing motion or the underlying summary-judgment motions.
The court granted in part the Class’s administrative motion, docket entry 160, as to the Class’s memorandum supporting its summary-judgment motion. The court directed the Class to file a new public version by September 27, 2021, redacting only the passages addressed in Footnote 1 of PNC’s declaration.
The court also directed the Class to file Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, 1-O, 1-P, and 1-Q unredacted in the public record by September 27, 2021. For Exhibit 1-R, a deposition of Michael Smiles, the court accepted PNC’s approach of publicly filing only the 20-page excerpt containing the pages cited in the Class’s summary-judgment motion, rather than redacting the full 273-page transcript. Because PNC had already filed that excerpt unredacted, the Class did not need to file a new public version. The remaining pages would not be considered part of the case record unless they were or later became separately filed elsewhere in the record.
Additional instruction
The court reminded both parties that unredacted documents filed provisionally under seal must identify, by highlighting or another clear method, the portions omitted from the redacted versions. The order addressed only the sealing motions; it did not resolve the underlying cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.