Rowe v. Google LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rowe v. Google LLC, Judge Schofield granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion to seal materials about a former employee’s separation agreement.
Google LLC and Rowe were affected by the sealing rulings; the public gained access to most of the disputed material, while the amount paid to Tariq Shaukat under his separation agreement remained sealed.
What happened
In Rowe v. Google LLC, Google asked to seal portions of letters addressing its request to take three depositions of witnesses, including former employee Tariq Shaukat. The letters discussed Shaukat’s separation agreement. The court had already denied Google’s deposition request in an earlier order.
The court said the letters were judicial documents, but the public-access presumption was relatively weak because the deposition request did not decide the parties’ substantive rights. The court allowed the amount paid to Shaukat under the separation agreement to remain sealed because it was private financial information unrelated to the claims. It rejected sealing the agreement’s other terms and Rowe’s description of them because those materials concerned whether Google could require Shaukat to attend trial and supported allegations made by both sides.
Judge Schofield granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion to seal. She ordered Rowe to file a version of her opposition letter with narrower redactions by December 14, 2022, and stated that the order did not decide whether the separation agreement would be admissible at trial.
The detailed version
- Rowe v. Google LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08655
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
Google filed a request for a pre-motion conference concerning its request to take three de bene esse depositions. Rowe opposed the underlying deposition request, and Google replied. In connection with those filings, both sides sought to seal portions of their letters discussing a separation agreement between Google and Tariq Shaukat, a former employee and one of the proposed witnesses. A December 6, 2022, order had already denied Google’s request to take the depositions.
Legal standard
The court applied a three-step test for sealing court documents. First, it asked whether the materials were judicial documents subject to a presumed right of public access. Second, it assessed the strength of that presumption based on the materials’ relationship to the exercise of judicial power. Third, it balanced the presumption against competing interests, including privacy. Sealing was allowed only if specific findings showed that it was necessary to protect a higher value and was narrowly tailored to that purpose.
Ruling
The court determined that the parties’ letters were judicial documents because they presented the arguments on which the court’s decision about the deposition request was based. The presumption of public access was relatively weak because the deposition request did not determine the parties’ substantive rights.
The court held that the dollar amount paid to Mr. Shaukat under the separation agreement was private financial information unrelated to the claims at issue. It therefore ordered that amount, appearing on page two of Rowe’s opposition letter, to be filed under seal.
The court denied sealing of all other information, including the separation agreement’s text and Rowe’s characterization of its terms. The parties’ agreement to treat the document as confidential was not enough to overcome public access. The relevant terms concerned whether Google could compel Mr. Shaukat’s attendance at trial, and the letters contained allegations by Rowe that Google acted in bad faith and by Google that Rowe deliberately omitted relevant portions of the agreement. The court also found Google’s claimed harm from disclosure of the cooperation provision to be conclusory and unpersuasive.
Disposition
Judge Schofield granted in part and denied in part Google’s motion to seal. She ordered Rowe to file a new version of her opposition letter with narrower redactions by December 14, 2022. The order expressly made no ruling on whether the separation agreement, in whole or in part, would be admissible at trial. The clerk was directed to unseal the letter at Docket 269 and close the motions at Docket 263 and Docket 266.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.