Johnson v. L'Oreal USA
- John Cronan
- 1:18-cv-09786
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Johnson v. L’Oreal USA, Judge Cronan provisionally sealed exhibits, ordered further sealing submissions, and extended Defendant’s reply deadline.
Amanda Johnson and L’Oreal USA, concerning public access to exhibits and the schedule and length of L’Oreal USA’s summary-judgment reply.
What happened
Amanda Johnson asked the court to seal documents and exhibits filed with her opposition to L’Oreal USA’s summary-judgment motion. L’Oreal explained why it sought sealing, and also requested more time and additional pages for its reply brief.
The court provisionally allowed Exhibits B, C, D, E, and R to be filed under seal, citing sensitive company information and nonparty employees’ privacy interests. It did not make a final sealing decision and required the parties to meet and confer about Exhibits 3 and 30 and explain whether sealing or redactions were justified.
Judge John P. Cronan granted L’Oreal USA’s request for an extension until April 20, 2021, and allowed a reply brief of up to 15 pages. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 115 and 120.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. L'Oreal USA · No. 1:18-cv-09786
- John Cronan
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
Amanda Johnson moved on behalf of L’Oreal USA to seal documents and exhibits attached to her opposition to L’Oreal USA’s motion for summary judgment. L’Oreal USA submitted a letter explaining its request. The court also understood that Johnson had asked electronic filing support to place Exhibits 3 and 30 to Docket Number 112 under emergency seal. L’Oreal USA separately requested an extension until April 20, 2021, to file its reply papers and permission to file a reply of up to 15 pages.
Sealing request
The court treated Exhibits B, C, D, E, and R to Docket Number 116 as judicial documents because they were submitted with a summary-judgment motion. Judicial documents are subject to a strong presumption of public access. The court found that L’Oreal USA’s interest in protecting sensitive company information and the privacy interests of nonparty employees outweighed that presumption for Exhibits B, C, D, and E, at least at that stage of the case. It found that nonparties’ privacy interests also outweighed the presumption of public access for Exhibit R.
The court permitted Exhibits B, C, D, E, and R to be filed only provisionally under seal. It reserved a final decision on whether they should remain sealed until after the court decided L’Oreal USA’s summary-judgment motion.
The court did not decide whether Exhibits 3 and 30 should be sealed or redacted. It ordered Johnson and L’Oreal USA to meet and confer and file a joint letter by April 13, 2021, explaining their positions. If they agreed on redactions, they had to submit the proposed redactions. If they disagreed, the party seeking sealing or redactions had to explain why the requested treatment was necessary, identify particular portions of the deposition transcripts at issue, and explain the basis for the request. The court also allowed the initial sealing letter, and any opposition to it, to be filed under seal, subject to the requirements described in the order.
Other ruling and disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted L’Oreal USA’s request for an extension until April 20, 2021, to file its reply papers in support of its summary-judgment motion. The court also allowed a reply brief of up to 15 pages. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Numbers 115 and 120.
This order addressed sealing requests and briefing deadlines; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.