Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08434
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp., Judge Caproni ordered limited redactions of employee contact information in Exhibit F.
IBM, the plaintiffs, and the current and former IBM employees whose email addresses or phone numbers appeared in Exhibit F.
What happened
Rusis et al. v. International Business Machines Corp. involved IBM’s request concerning an exhibit filed in connection with its motion about certain age-discrimination claims.
IBM asked the court to allow limited redactions in Exhibit F of Alison B. Marshall’s declaration. The redactions covered email addresses and phone numbers of current and former IBM employees. The unredacted exhibit was filed under seal, and the plaintiffs’ counsel consented to the requested redactions except for information concerning their client.
The court ordered Exhibit F to be filed with limited redactions. The order was issued by Judge Valerie Caproni.
The detailed version
- Rusis v. International Business Machines Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-08434
- Valerie Caproni
- Aug. 18, 2020
Background
IBM asked the court to permit limited redactions to Exhibit F of Alison B. Marshall’s declaration. The request was made in connection with IBM’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings concerning the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims of plaintiffs who allegedly filed defective administrative charges or fell outside the time period covered by the named plaintiffs’ charges.
Requested Redactions
IBM sought to redact only email addresses and phone numbers belonging to current and former IBM employees. IBM stated that the unredacted version of Exhibit F was being filed under seal. The letter also stated that plaintiffs’ counsel requested redaction of information concerning their client and otherwise consented to the remaining redactions.
Ruling
The court ordered Exhibit F to be filed with limited redactions. The provided order addresses the filing and privacy redactions; it does not decide the merits of IBM’s motion concerning the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.