Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:20-cv-02489
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., Judge Swain directed plaintiffs to respond to the Campaign’s sealing request by August 28 without deciding it.
The order affects the plaintiffs and Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. by setting a deadline for plaintiffs to respond to the Campaign’s request concerning public filing, redaction, or sealing of exhibits. The requested protections also concern the privacy of third parties mentioned in the exhibits.
What happened
Wood et al. v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. concerns the Campaign’s response to plaintiffs’ request to file parts of their class-certification motion and exhibits with redactions or under seal.
The Campaign asked to redact personal cell phone numbers and a third-party employee’s name from several exhibits. It also asked to file Exhibit 16 entirely under seal because it contained a non-party job candidate’s personal email address and employment information. The Campaign said the information was private, unrelated to the class-certification motion and claims, and would leave the exhibit meaningless if redacted.
The order directed plaintiffs to respond to the Campaign’s letter-motion by August 28 and stated that docket entry 385 was resolved. Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not rule in the provided text on whether the requested redactions or sealing would be permitted.
The detailed version
- Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02489
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 22, 2023
Background
The Campaign submitted a letter responding to plaintiffs’ request to file portions of their motion for class certification and accompanying exhibits with redactions or under seal. The Campaign stated that it did not otherwise object to plaintiffs’ public filing of the documents identified in their sealing request.
The Campaign’s Requests
The Campaign asked to file Exhibits 1, 17, 22 through 28, 30 through 37, and 39 through 42 with limited redactions. The requested redactions included personal cell phone numbers and, in Exhibit 31, the name of a third-party employee mentioned in an email exchange about a personnel issue.
The Campaign separately asked to file Exhibit 16 entirely under seal. According to the letter, that exhibit is an email between a Campaign employee and a non-party job candidate who was never hired. The email includes the candidate’s personal email address and information about the candidate’s employment history and background. The Campaign argued that this information was personal, irrelevant to plaintiffs’ class-certification motion and claims, and extensive enough that redaction would make the remaining document meaningless.
Legal Standard Discussed
The letter cited the Second Circuit’s three-step framework for sealing judicial documents. Courts first determine whether the materials are judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. They then assess the strength of that presumption based on the materials’ role in the court’s exercise of its constitutional authority and their value to people monitoring the courts. Finally, they balance that presumption against competing considerations, including the privacy interests of non-parties.
The letter also cited decisions recognizing that limited redactions may protect third parties’ personal information and that full sealing may be appropriate when redactions would make a document unintelligible. The Campaign maintained that its requests were narrowly tailored to protect third-party privacy interests.
What the Court Did
The endorsed order directed plaintiffs to respond to the Campaign’s letter-motion to seal by August 28, 2023. It stated that docket entry 385 was resolved and ended with “SO ORDERED.” The provided text does not show a ruling granting or denying the Campaign’s requested redactions or full sealing of Exhibit 16.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.