Equifax Judge Warns Lawyers to Limit Record-Sealing Requests
U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash issued a 34-page protective order in the Equifax data breach multidistrict litigation but warned lawyers and their clients that they should treat documents filed in the case as "presumptively public" and use their "best efforts" to limit confidential filings.
May 03, 2018 at 03:37 PM
4 minute read
The federal judge presiding over massive multidistrict litigation stemming from last year's data breach at Atlanta-based Equifax Inc. has signed a protective order warning lawyers that, while some highly sensitive materials may be sealed during the litigation, they should treat documents filed in the case as “presumptively public.”
U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash also said he would require “an appropriate showing” to justify any confidentiality claims.
Thrash acknowledged in the 34-page order April 18 that the nature of the litigation—concerning the exposure to hackers of the financial and personal data of more than 145 million people—would necessarily involve “unique risks” related to privacy, data security and data management “that will be greater than in most cases.”
Nevertheless, the judge ordered the parties “to use their best efforts to limit the filing of confidential or highly confidential material under seal.”
“This order,” he warned, “does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery. … The protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment.”
It is not the first time Thrash has put attorneys on notice that he does not intend to allow them to use protective orders to unilaterally seal large swaths of the public record.
In 2015, while presiding over multidistrict litigation stemming from a data breach at Atlanta-based Home Depot, Thrash warned lawyers he would reject attempts to seal large portions of the court record.
“The first 10 years I was on the bench, pretty much we just went along with whatever y'all wanted to do about sealing documents. At least I did,” he said then. “And then in these big commercial cases it became clear that things were just getting out of hand, and the lawyers were wanting to seal virtually everything.”
“This wholesale practice of designating everything and every page of deposition testimony as confidential or super-confidential or attorneys' eyes only I'm not going to accept,” he said.
In the Equifax case, Thrash said that sealing would be limited to documents that could reveal a trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial or data security information. The protective order also extends to information revealing personally identifiable information, corporate security information and other information that “would create a substantial risk of serious harm.”
Thrash directed that anyone producing materials under seal would be limited to designating as protected “only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify—so that other portions of the material, documents, items or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this order.”
“Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited,” Thrash's order said. Moreover, if data or other information is filed under seal but does not qualify, “That producing party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation.”
Thrash also made clear what he would not allow to be filed under seal:
- Any information in the public domain either at the time it is filed or that becomes part of the public domain at a later, including information that becomes part of the public record through trial or other court proceedings;
- Any information known or obtained by the recipient of the information, as long as it was obtained legally.”
Thrash instructed the leadership committees of lawyers steering the litigation and hundreds of clients they represent “to use their best efforts to limit the filing of confidential or highly confidential material under seal to those situations where such filing is necessary to the resolution of a motion or other matter before the court.”
Any party or nonparty, Thrash said, may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readOn The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
6 minute readWoman's Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250