Morris v. Jetblue Airways Corporation

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Finding that the order of Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann denying deft's motion to seal is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law, that order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Deft is directed to file its fully briefed motion to dismiss on ECF w/in five days of the docketing of this Order, unless it no longer wishes to proceed with its motion. (Ordered by Judge Eric N. Vitaliano on 11/22/15). (Galeano, Sonia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------}{
GERALD MORRIS,
Plaintiff,
-againstJETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------}{
VITALIANO, D.J.
Plaintiff Gerald Morris filed this action against JetBlue Airways Corp. ("JetBlue") on
March 27, 2015, alleging that it violated state and federal law by discriminating against him on
account of his disability. On October 6, 2015, JetBlue, in the midst of briefing its motion to
dismiss, filed a motion to seal seven e:xhibits attached to the plaintiffs opposition papers. 1 ECF
Dkt. 14. On October 20, 2015, Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann, who is supervising discovery
in this case, issued an order denying defendant's sealing motion as to all seven e:xhibits.
Defendant files this appeal. 2

1

Defendant also sought, and on October 22, 2015, the Court granted, a stay delaying the filing of
the fully briefed and served motion to dismiss until the motion to seal had been resolved.
2
Defendant has filed objections to Judge Mann's order, but it is properly understood as an
appeal. The appeal of an order of a magistrate judge is governed by the Federal Magistrates Act,
28 U.S.C. §§ 631 et seq. and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A magistrate
judge can make findings as to nondispositive pretrial matters and to issue an order that is binding
in and of itself. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Thomas E. Hoar, Inc.
v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F .2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990). Because matters concerning discovery are
generally considered nondispositive of the litigation, resolution of a discovery dispute by a
magistrate judge in the form of an order is appropriate, and the Court considers objections to
such orders as an appeal from that order. See, e.g., Thomas E. Hoar, Inc., 900 F.2d at 525;
Sheppardv. Beerman, No. 91-1349, 1999 WL 1011940, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1999).
1

Background
Familiarity with the facts of this case, as outlined in Magistrate Judge Mann's Order, is
presumed. To the extent details are repeated here, it is for the purpose of clarity.
On June 15, 2015, JetBlue requested a pre-motion conference to file a motion to dismiss.
The Court denied the motion on July 15, 2015, and directed the parties to submit a proposed
briefing schedule. That schedule was adopted on July 27, 2015. On September 22, 2015;ECF
Dkt. 13, after receiving plaintiffs opposition to the motion to dismiss, defendant moved by letter
application to strike (i) 15 excess pages; and (ii) 15 exhibits that plaintiff attached to the
Declaration of Chauncey D. Henry, which defendant deemed "outside the bounds of the
Complaint." The Court denied this motion on September 25, 2015, but granted defendant
additional pages for its reply.
On October 6, 2015, JetBlue filed a motion to seal seven of the contested exhibits, which
it describes, with attendant reasons for sealing each, as follows:
(i)

(ii)

(iii)
(iv)

(v)

Henry Declaration "Exhibit E," a copy of Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs
[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")] Charge which contains
a multitude of confidential and personnel information regarding past and present
employees of JetBlue who are third-parties to this action;
Henry Declaration "Exhibit F," a copy of Plaintiffs Reply to JetBlue's Response
to Plaintiffs EEOC Charge which contains confidential and personnel
information regarding past and present employees of JetBlue who are third-parties
to this action;
"Exhibit J," a copy of JetBlue's handbook which contains confidential and
proprietary business information;
"Exhibit K" and "Exhibit N," Progressive Guidance Reports which contain
confidential and proprietary business information, as well as personnel
information regarding past and present employees of JetBlue who are third-parties
to this action; and
"Exhibit L" and "Exhibit M," letters from JetBlue's third-party FMLA provider
regarding Plaintiffs FMLA leave.

2

Motion to Seal at 2. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to seal, and, on October 20, 2015,
notwithstanding the absence of opposition, Judge Mann issued her order denying that motion in
its entirety. Order, Dkt. 17, at 9-11.
Standard of Review
Generally, "magistrate judges have broad discretion in resolving nondispositive
matters .... " Gorman v. Polar Electro, Inc., 137 F. Supp. 2d 223, 226 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); see also
Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd v. Coventry First LLC, 282 F.R.D. 76, 78

(S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting AMBAC Fin. Servs., L.L.C. v. Bay Area Toll Auth., No. 09-Civ.-7062,
2010 WL 4892678, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010). Nevertheless, a district judge "may
reconsider any pretrial matter ... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is
clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l){A). Hence, a party may object to a
magistrate judge's pretrial order on a nondispositive matter within 14 days of the entry of the
order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). "An order is contrary to law 'when it fails to apply or misapplies
relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure."' Rathgaber v. Town of Oyster Bay, 492 F.
Supp. 2d 130, 137 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm't Corp.,
206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). In line with this deference, "the magistrate judge's finding
should not be rejected merely because the court would have decided the matter differently."
Graves v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., No. 07-Civ.-5471(BSJ),2010 WL 997178, at *7

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010) (citing Anderson v. City ofBessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S. Ct.
1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985)). Pointedly, this highly deferential standard of review imposes a
"heavy burden" on the party challenging the order. Com-Tech Assocs. v. Computer Assocs. Int'/,
Inc., 753 F. Supp. 1078, 1099 (E.D.N.Y. 1990), affd, 938 F.2d 1574 (2d Cir. 1991). The

Supreme Court has emphasized that an order can only be found to be "clearly erroneous" when
3

"the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definiie and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68
S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948).
Discussion
The common law presumes a right of public access to judicial documents. Stern v. Cosby,
529 F. Supp. 2d 417, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). The Second Circuit "has set forth a three-part analysis for
determining whether documents relating to a lawsuit must be made available to the public. Id.
First, the court determines whether the contested documents are "judicial documents, to which
the public has a presumptive right of access"; second, the court evaluates the "weight of the
presumption"; finally, the court balances the "competing considerations against it." Id.
In its objections to Judge Mann's Order, defendant merely repeats arguments made on its
motions to strike and seal, and argues that (i) the exhibits at issue are not referenced in plaintiffs
memorandum of law and have "nothing to do with Plaintiffs Opposition whatsoever," and, thus,
are not judicial documents; and that, if they are judicial documents, the presumption of public
access is "extremely low" and the countervailing factors of "protection of proprietary,
confidential, and personal information" favor sealing. Def. Objs. 5.
Stand patism will not carry the day. Having conducted a thorough review of Magistrate
Judge Mann's order denying JetBlue's motion to seal, the Court finds no basis upon which to
conclude that Judge Mann's findings are "clearly erroneous" or "contrary to law." On the
contrary, Judge Mann's well-reasoned and comprehensive order properly considered, and
rejected, each of these claims.

4

In an ill-advised attempt to move for reconsideration of the motion to strike, defendant
argued that as a threshold matter, the Court could not consider the exhibits at all in ruling on a
motion to dismiss. Defs. Objs. 5-7. Judge Mann rightly pointed out that this is incorrect. A
district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings when evaluating a motion to dismiss
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b){l), and extrinsic documents are permissible in a Rule 12{b)(6)
motion when integral to the complaint or when converted into a motion for summary judgment.
Order, Dkt. 17, 9-11. Consequently, the challenged doc1:1111ents may be deemed judicial
documents with a strong presumption of public access. Id at 11.
As to the alleged countervailing interests defendant asserts against public access, Judge
Mann found that none of the exhibits contained confidential or proprietary information sufficient
to warrant sealing. Id. at 12. Exhibits E and F "recount the same series of events that form the
basis of this litigation" and are both "heavily redacted." Id Exhibit J, an excerpt from JetBlue's
employee handbook, "merely recapitulates the requirements of the FMLA." Id at 13. Exhibits L
and Mare letters to Morris from JetBlue's third-party FMLA provider approving and rejecting
parts of his application for FMLA leave. There is, in short, nothing remotely proprietary or
confidential, except perhaps personal information relating to Morris and no one else. Id. Exhibit
K, consisting of redacted "Progressive Guidance Reports," contain supervisory assessments of
plaintiffs job performance, and, again, no proprietary information about JetBlue or other JetBlue
employees. Id at 14. Finally, Exhibit N is an email from Morris to two JetBlue employees
already referenced extensively in the complaint. Judge Mann found that this email "discloses no
proprietary information of defendant's, and mentions other JetBlue employees only
incidentally." Id

5

In all, Judge Mann determined that the seven exhibits at issue "do not implicate
'countervailing factors' sufficient to rebut even a weak presumption of access to judicial
documents." Id. The Court agrees. Each of the magistrate judge's findings is supported by the
evidence. In any event, the Court certainly has no conviction that Judge Mann in any way
misapplied the relevant law or has fallen victim to clear error.
Conclusion
Finding that the order of Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann denying defendant's motion
to seal is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to the law, that order is affirmed and the appeal is
dismissed.
Defendant is directed to file its fully briefed motion to dismiss on ECF within five days
of the docketing of this Order, unless it no longer wishes to proceed with its motion.
So Ordered.

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
November 22, 2015
Eric N. Vitaliano
United States District Judge

6