Wood v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed portions of their motion for class certification, supporting memorandum, and exhibits with redactions or under seal under the parties’ confidentiality agreement and protective order. The defendant asked the court to allow certain exhibits to remain under seal or to be filed with limited redactions. Specifically, it sought limited redactions for Exhibits 1, 17, 22–28, 30–37, and 39–42, and asked that Exhibit 16 remain completely under seal.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the requested limited redactions for Exhibits 1, 17, 22–28, 30–37, and 39–42. They opposed sealing Exhibit 16 in its entirety but did not oppose limited redactions to that exhibit.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that any redaction or sealing of a court filing must be narrowly tailored to serve the purpose supporting it and must be consistent with the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.

The court found that Exhibits 1, 17, 22–28, 30–37, and 39–42 contained personally identifying information—telephone numbers. It therefore granted the request to file those exhibits with the proposed redactions.

Exhibit 16 was an email exchange between a Campaign employee and a non-party job candidate who was never hired. The email included the candidate’s personal email address and information about the candidate’s employment history and background. The defendant argued that this information was personal and irrelevant to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and claims. The court noted, however, that the exhibit also discussed the common scheduling and hours expectations for the Field Organizer position, which the plaintiffs identified as relevant to class certification and the merits of the case. The court concluded that completely sealing the exhibit was broader than necessary. It found that redacting the portions about the candidate’s employment history and background would adequately protect the candidate’s privacy.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted the defendant’s request to file Exhibits 1, 17, 22–28, 30–37, and 39–42 with redactions. She denied the request to keep Exhibit 16 entirely under seal.

The court directed the plaintiffs to file redacted versions of Exhibits 1, 16, 17, 22–28, 29, 31–37, and 39–42 on the public docket, and to file the unredacted versions under seal with access limited to the parties. The court also directed that the remaining materials supporting the motion for class certification be refiled publicly without redactions. The order resolved docket entry 390.