Pride Technologies, LLC v. Khublall
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-11315
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pride Technologies v. Khublall, Judge Schofield granted sealing for Exhibit 63, denied it for five others, and ordered revised redacted filings.
Pride Technologies must file revised redacted documents. Randstad obtained sealing for Exhibit 63 and related references, while Khublall’s Exhibits 100, 118, 119, and 120 and TalentNet’s Exhibit 114 were not sealed. The order also affects public access to those filings.
What happened
Pride Technologies, LLC asked the court to seal six exhibits and redact references to them in its opposition papers and factual statement. The documents had been designated confidential by Defendant Daniel Khublall or by non-parties Randstad Professionals US, LLC and TalentNet Inc.
Khublall and TalentNet did not object to public filing of the exhibits they had designated. Randstad supported sealing Exhibit 63, stating that it contained sensitive business communications about strategic partnerships, capabilities, and preparation for bidding on a request for proposals.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion for Exhibit 63 but denied it for Exhibits 100, 114, 118, 119, and 120. She ordered Pride Technologies to file new versions containing only redactions concerning Exhibit 63 and directed the Clerk of Court to close the sealing motions.
The detailed version
- Pride Technologies, LLC v. Khublall · No. 1:19-cv-11315
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
Pride Technologies, LLC moved to seal Exhibits 100, 118, 119, and 120 to the Declaration of Andrew Hoffmann because Defendant Daniel Khublall had designated them as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” Pride also sought to seal Exhibit 63 because non-party Randstad Professionals US, LLC d/b/a Randstad Sourceright had designated it “Confidential,” and Exhibit 114 because non-party TalentNet Inc. had designated it “Highly Confidential.” Pride further asked to redact portions of its opposition memorandum and its Rule 56.1 statement that summarized, discussed, or quoted those exhibits.
Under the court’s Individual Rule I.D.3, the party seeking confidential treatment had the burden of persuasion. The court gave Khublall, TalentNet, and Randstad an opportunity to support Pride’s motion. Khublall stated that he did not object to public filing of Exhibits 100, 118, 119, and 120. TalentNet stated that it did not object to public filing of Exhibit 114. Randstad supported sealing Exhibit 63, asserting that the exhibit and documents summarizing or quoting it contained business communications about strategic partnerships, capabilities, and the process leading to a request-for-proposals bid. Randstad said disclosure could allow competitors to use its strategic approach and harm its market position.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion as to Exhibit 63 and denied it as to Exhibits 100, 114, 118, 119, and 120. The court cited the rule that sealing requires specific findings showing that closure is essential to preserve a higher value and narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
The court ordered Pride Technologies to file new redacted versions of the Hoffmann Declaration, its opposition memorandum, and its Rule 56.1 statement. Those versions were to contain only redactions of Exhibit 63 and summaries of or quotations from that exhibit. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 127 and 141.
Classification
This was a procedural order concerning access to court filings, not a decision on the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.