Fishon v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs moved for a protective order limiting Peloton’s questions about Ishmael Alvarado’s criminal history and financial history. In an earlier order, the court required Alvarado to answer document requests about his criminal history, required Peloton to file related documents subject to a protective order, and limited questioning about that history at deposition.

The plaintiffs then asked the court to: (1) redact references to Alvarado’s criminal history, convictions, and criminal proceedings from pages 1 through 3 of Peloton’s letter responding to the earlier motion; (2) seal Exhibits 3 and 4 to that letter; and (3) enter a supplemental protective order designating documents related to Alvarado’s criminal history and proceedings as confidential. Peloton neither supported nor opposed the motion.

Public Access and Sealing Requests

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. A document is a judicial document when it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Peloton’s letter and its exhibits met that definition because they were submitted in connection with a discovery dispute over which the court had supervisory authority.

The court also explained that the strength of the public-access presumption depends on the document’s role in the exercise of federal judicial power. Materials connected to discovery disputes generally receive a lower presumption of access than evidence introduced at trial or submitted with a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court therefore balanced the public’s interest in access against Alvarado’s privacy interest.

The plaintiffs acknowledged that the information was already publicly available and had been obtained from public records rather than discovery. The court concluded that Alvarado’s privacy interest in that information was limited. It also stated that the court could not prevent defense counsel from otherwise making the information public, including in response to questions from proposed class members.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on Mirlis v. Greer. That case involved a video deposition of a nonparty witness, while Alvarado was a plaintiff seeking to represent absent class members. The court also found that withholding the information from the docket would make public oversight more difficult because the public would have to search public databases to review it.

Ruling

The court denied the request to redact references to Alvarado’s criminal history, convictions, and criminal proceedings from Peloton’s letter. It also denied the request to seal Exhibits 3 and 4. The court stated that the letter should remain unredacted and that the exhibits should remain unsealed.

The court granted the request for a supplemental protective order and stated that it would enter that order. The clerk was directed to close Docket No. 221. The opinion is classified as a procedural order because it resolved discovery, confidentiality, and public-access issues rather than deciding the underlying claims.