Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-10104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Metcalf v. TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., Judge Parker granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal sensitive business information from a discovery dispute.
The ruling affected plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson, TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., and public access to the specified discovery materials.
What happened
In Metcalf, et al. v. TransPerfect Translations International, Inc., plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson asked to file some discovery materials under seal. The materials had been designated confidential by TransPerfect.
The materials included TransPerfect’s overtime-pay calculations, information about a claimed retroactive payment to an employee, and an email exchange between TransPerfect employees. Plaintiffs asked to file a redacted version publicly and the unredacted materials under seal.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion to seal. She found that the information was sensitive business information and that the proposed redactions were narrowly limited.
The detailed version
- Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-10104
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 13, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs Michele Metcalf and Hannah Lawson asked the court to allow them to file under seal an unredacted version of Exhibit C, which accompanied their letter concerning a discovery dispute. They proposed filing a redacted version publicly and the unredacted version under seal.
The parties were subject to a stipulated protective order. TransPerfect Translations International, Inc. designated three documents as confidential: a document containing its calculations of overtime pay allegedly due to employees; a document containing information about a purported retroactive payment to an employee; and an email exchange between TransPerfect employees.
Plaintiffs stated that the materials had been designated confidential and represented that they contained trade secrets or commercially sensitive business information. Plaintiffs did not take a position on whether TransPerfect’s designations were proper and reserved the right to challenge them under the protective order.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. Because the materials were submitted in connection with a discovery dispute rather than a dispositive motion or trial, the presumption of public access carried less weight. Even so, the court was required to make specific findings that sealing was necessary to protect an important interest and that the proposed sealing was narrowly tailored.
The court noted that a confidentiality designation under an agreement, by itself, does not justify sealing. Here, however, the court found that the information plaintiffs sought to seal was sensitive business information sufficient to overcome the relatively low presumption of public access. The court also found that plaintiffs’ proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to seal. The opinion does not state that the court decided whether TransPerfect’s confidentiality designations were substantively proper.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.