Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-02174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Judge Furman ordered continued confidentiality for filings discussing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s conciliation process.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation, and Franchitti, because the order concerns confidentiality and sealing of filings about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conciliation process.
What happened
Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation concerns Cognizant’s request to keep certain court filings confidential because they discuss a settlement-related process conducted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Cognizant asked the court to keep temporarily sealed filings sealed, require redactions in public filings, and place unredacted versions under seal. It argued that federal law protects information exchanged during the conciliation process unless the participants give written consent to disclosure.
The filing ends with the court’s “SO ORDERED” notation, followed by Judge Jesse M. Furman’s date. The text provided does not separately state the ruling as “granted” or “denied,” but it reflects an order addressing Cognizant’s confidentiality request. A response from the plaintiff, if any, was due July 29, 2022.
The detailed version
- Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-02174
- Jesse Furman
- July 22, 2022
Nature of the Filing
The text provided is a letter from counsel for defendants Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation to the court. It asks that documents and allegations concerning the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s conciliation process remain confidential.
Cognizant’s Request
Cognizant asked the court to keep temporarily sealed filings sealed; require that information about the conciliation process be redacted from public filings; and require unredacted versions of those filings to be submitted under seal. The letter identifies filings at ECF Nos. 37, 46, 50, 58, and 62.
Cognizant relied on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), which provides that information said or done during the conciliation process may not be used as evidence without the written consent of the people concerned. The letter states that Cognizant had not provided written consent to disclosure. It also argued that the confidentiality rule applies to both the employer and Franchitti.
Court Action
The letter cites an earlier decision in a related case in which a court sealed documents or allegations referring to specific actions taken during conciliation efforts. It also argues that discussing some conciliation details in the court’s July 8, 2022 order did not waive the parties’ confidentiality obligations.
The filing concludes with the notation “SO ORDERED,” followed by the date July 22, 2022. The provided text does not expressly use the words “granted,” “denied,” or “granted in part and denied in part.” It therefore shows that the court entered an order after Cognizant’s request, but does not state a more specific disposition in the text supplied. The plaintiff’s response, if any, was due July 29, 2022.
Effect
The requested confidentiality measures concern the parties’ filings and information relating to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conciliation process. The provided text does not describe a decision on the underlying employment dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.