Opinion
22Civ.1479 (JPC) (GS)
10-08-2024
HUMBERTO LOZADA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TASKUS, INC., et al., Defendants.
ORDER
GARY STEIN, United States Magistrate Judge
Pursuant to the Court's prior Orders (Dkt. Nos. 120 & 121), the parties submitted a joint letter on September 11, 2024 (Dkt. No. 125), indicating they have met and conferred and reached an agreement on Plaintiffs' motions to seal pending as of that date (Dkt. Nos. 97, 106, 113). The parties' joint submission effectively amends Plaintiffs' motions by significantly reducing the volume of proposed materials to be kept entirely under seal and limiting the number of proposed redactions in publicly available documents. (See Dkt. No. 125 Exs. 1-11 (providing proposed redactions in yellow highlights)). In addition, Defendants propose limited redactions to the publicly available version of the transcript of the parties' August 20, 2024 discovery conference before the undersigned. (Id. Ex. 12).
Having reviewed the parties' September 11 submission and the more limited information they now propose to seal, the Court agrees that sealing is warranted to protect Defendants' confidential and proprietary business information. The parties' submission proposes a narrowly tailored approach to protecting this information that sets forth specific reasons why certain documents should be sealed or redacted. See, e.g., Thor Equities, LLC v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., No. 20 Civ. 3380 (AT), 2023 WL 6382684, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2023) (noting that “the protection of sensitive, confidential, or proprietary business information is a countervailing interest that can militate in favor of sealing” and granting motions to seal where “the parties have adduced particular and specific facts to demonstrate that narrowly tailored redactions are necessary to preserve higher values”) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, the parties are directed to promptly submit (1) a cover letter with versions of Exhibits 1 through 11 attached that may be filed publicly (i.e., with black redactions) and, separately, (2) a proposed order instructing the Clerk of Court to replace Plaintiffs' existing publicly filed submissions with these documents. For example, the first exhibit to the parties' letter should be Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support for Class Certification with black redactions substituted for the parties' proposed yellow redactions (Dkt. No. 125-1). The proposed order should then instruct the Clerk of Court to replace Docket Number 114 (Plaintiffs' publicly-filed Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support for Class Certification) with the Docket Number assigned to the parties' anticipated submission containing the black redactions. With respect to the documents the parties propose to be filed publicly in their entirety (e.g., Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs' submission in advance of the August 20 discovery conference), the proposed order should direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the relevant filing and cite to both the public and sealed Docket Numbers (i.e., Dkt. Nos. 98-3 & 99-3).
The parties do not need to submit a public version of the August 20 discovery conference transcript. Rather, the parties are directed to provide a copy of this Order and their proposed redactions (i.e., yellow highlights) to the transcriber at ammtranscription@gmail.com. For the avoidance of doubt, all of the parties' proposed redactions (see Dkt. No. 125-12) are approved.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions pending at Docket Nos. 97, 106, and 113.
SO ORDERED.