Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Metcalf v. TransPerfect Translations, Judge Parker denied without prejudice TransPerfect’s request to keep an exhibit secret.
TransPerfect, which must either submit a narrower sealing request supported by specific explanations of possible harm or face unsealing of the material; the public, whose access to the exhibit is presumed; and the parties and court, who could view the exhibit while it remained sealed.
What happened
In Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson v. TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., TransPerfect asked to keep an exhibit supporting its motion to dismiss under seal, meaning unavailable to the public. The exhibit contained information from employee wage statements, pay records, and email logs.
The court said materials supporting a motion that could end a case are generally public court records. A confidentiality designation under a protective order was not enough, and TransPerfect did not identify specific competitive harm from disclosure. The request also covered the entire exhibit, including information the court said was not commercially sensitive.
Judge Parker denied the motion without prejudice. TransPerfect may file a revised request by June 27, 2022, proposing limited redactions and explaining the harm from each disclosure; otherwise, the sealed material will be unsealed.
The detailed version
- Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10104
- Edgardo Ramos
- June 13, 2022
Background
The court considered TransPerfect’s letter motion to seal Exhibit A to a declaration filed with TransPerfect’s second motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Exhibit A was filed under seal at ECF No. 153-1, so it could be viewed only by the court and the parties. A prior protective order allowed the parties to designate certain nonpublic business, commercial, financial, or personal information as confidential, but it stated that confidential discovery material would not automatically be filed under seal.
TransPerfect said Exhibit A contained commercially sensitive information derived from employee wage statements, pay records, and email transmission logs. It asked to seal the entire exhibit.
Legal Standard
The common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. Documents submitted in support of or opposition to a dispositive motion—a motion that could resolve the case or claims—are judicial documents. To overcome that presumption, the party seeking secrecy must show on the record that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and that the request is narrowly tailored. A confidentiality agreement or protective-order designation alone is not enough.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Exhibit A was a judicial document subject to the public-access presumption. TransPerfect’s reliance on the protective order did not overcome that presumption. Commercially sensitive information might justify sealing if disclosure posed a risk of competitive harm, but TransPerfect did not identify any specific harm it would suffer if the exhibit became public. The court therefore could not make the required specific findings that sealing was necessary.
The court also found that the request was not narrowly tailored because it sought to seal the entire exhibit. The exhibit included information that was not commercially sensitive, including the number of employees at issue, the corrected overtime rate used to calculate damages, and the total calculated damages. The court said a narrower request would identify and redact only commercially sensitive information.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied without prejudice TransPerfect’s motion to seal, ECF No. 150. The denial allows TransPerfect to submit a revised motion. Any revised motion must propose narrowly tailored redactions and explain, for each proposed redaction, why public disclosure might harm TransPerfect. The court set June 27, 2022, as the filing deadline. If no revised motion was filed, the material sealed at ECF No. 153 would be unsealed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.