Moshell v. Sasol Limited

Background

On January 19, 2021, the parties asked to redact or file under seal numerous exhibits connected to Defendants’ pending motion for reconsideration. After requesting additional information about several exhibits, the Court reviewed the parties’ responses.

Rulings on the Exhibits

The Court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ request.

The Court approved limited redactions in Exhibits 3–6, 8, 26, 36, and 45 because third parties’ privacy interests outweighed the presumption that court filings should be publicly accessible. Plaintiffs had to refile Exhibits 8 and 45 publicly through the court’s electronic filing system. Exhibit 8 had to redact account-number information, the account holder’s contact information, and outgoing phone-call information. Exhibit 45 had to redact CW-5’s name and communications that could reveal CW-5’s identity.

For Exhibits 1, 9–25, 27–35, 37, 38, 44, and 46, the Court found that plaintiffs’ interests in keeping attorney work product and the litigation strategy of plaintiffs’ counsel and private investigator confidential outweighed the presumption of public access. The Court approved the proposed redactions and sealing requests for Exhibits 9–25, 27–35, 37, 38, 44, and 46. Plaintiffs had to refile Exhibit 1 publicly with its caption and first twelve paragraphs unredacted. A footnote also states that sealing Exhibit 32, like Exhibit 26, was justified by CW-5’s privacy interests.

The opinion states that Plaintiffs appeared to have withdrawn their requests to seal Exhibits 2 and 43. To the extent any requests for those exhibits remained, the Court denied them and required both exhibits to be refiled publicly in their entirety.

For Exhibits 39, 40, 41, 42, and 47, Defendants argued that the public-access presumption did not apply because the exhibits were not judicial documents—that is, materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The Court allowed Defendants to file those exhibits provisionally under seal and reserved a final decision on whether they should remain sealed until after disposition of the motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

The Court ordered all exhibits that Plaintiffs were required to refile to be filed electronically no later than one week from the Order’s date. Judge John P. Cronan directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 126. The Order addressed access to and filing of exhibits; it did not decide the pending motion for reconsideration.