Callas v. S&P Global Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs brought an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act concerning S&P Global, Inc.’s alleged termination of their employment and denial of severance benefits under its Separation Pay Plan. S&P Global moved to file the administrative record under seal. The record consisted of each plaintiff’s entire claim file, including the Separation Pay Plan, summary plan descriptions, documents concerning the plaintiffs’ job performance and terminations, and communications relating to their severance-benefit claims.

S&P later moved to seal the appendix to its statement of undisputed facts under Local Civil Rule 56.1. That appendix also consisted of the administrative record. S&P argued that the documents contained private, sensitive, or confidential information about the plaintiffs’ employment and severance pay, and that the plan documents had been provided confidentially to participants and potential participants.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the access-to-court-records framework from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Because the administrative record would provide the basis for the court’s determination, the documents were judicial documents. The court therefore had to weigh the presumption that the public may access them against competing privacy interests.

The court found S&P’s reasons for sealing insufficient. The record did not contain the kind of confidential personal information ordinarily subject to sealing. The plaintiffs had placed their job performance at issue by challenging their terminations, so documents concerning their performance, the reasons for termination, and the terms of severance were likely to affect the case’s adjudication. Those documents therefore carried a significant presumption of public access.

The court also found that S&P had not explained what privacy interests would be harmed by public access to the summary plan descriptions. S&P’s submission indicated that those documents had been distributed to many employees, and S&P identified nothing showing that the employees had been required to keep them confidential. Neither side argued that privilege justified sealing.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe concluded that S&P had not met the standard for sealing. The court denied S&P’s motion to file the administrative record under seal and denied its motion to seal the Local Civil Rule 56.1 appendix. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions and place the administrative record and appendix on the public docket.