Michele Metcalf v. Transperfect Global Inc.

Background

TransPerfect Translations International Inc. moved to preclude, meaning exclude, the report and testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert, David Breshears, while opposing the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The parties also filed three motions to seal materials submitted in connection with the class-certification and expert motions. The plaintiffs sought to file unredacted briefs and exhibits under seal because the defendant had produced the underlying information under a protective order and designated it confidential.

Expert motion

The court denied the motion to preclude as moot. The court explained that it had not relied on Breshears’s report in its report and recommendation concerning class certification. The report proposed methods for estimating hours worked when time records were unavailable, and Breshears acknowledged that his assumptions and calculations could change as discovery produced additional evidence. The court noted that the plaintiffs might later submit an expert report on the merits, at which point the defendant could challenge that report and submit its own expert report.

Motions to seal

The court applied the presumption that judicial documents—filed materials relevant and useful to the court’s work—should be publicly accessible. It found that the plaintiffs’ briefs connected to class certification and the expert motion carried a strong presumption of access, while the related exhibits carried a moderate presumption because much of their content was collateral to the court’s analysis.

The court concluded that the parties had not shown that sealing was necessary. The materials primarily concerned employee compensation practices and policies, internal communications, deposition testimony about payment practices and hour estimates, door-swipe records, and damages estimates for potential class members. The parties had not provided evidence addressing whether the information was known to others, its value to competitors, the effort or expense used to develop or protect it, or how easily others could obtain it. The court also observed that some information might have become stale after several years.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied as moot TransPerfect’s motion to preclude the expert report and testimony at ECF No. 228. The court denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motions to seal at ECF Nos. 214, 239, and 259, meaning the requests could be renewed. Either party could file a renewed motion by November 17, 2023, identifying the specific document and page involved and explaining why the information was proprietary and should remain sealed. Until then, the documents could remain under seal. If no renewed motion was filed, the court would direct that the documents be unsealed. The clerk was directed to terminate the four motions.