REINIG et al v. RBS CITIZENS, N.A.

Filing 386

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re #385 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal filed by RBS CITIZENS, N.A. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's #385 Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. RBS CITIZENS, N.A. shall redact from the deposition transcript excerpts filed on the public docket only personal identifying and personal financial information. Unredacted versions should be submitted separately to the Court as more fully set forth in said order. Signed by Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand on 12/22/2021. (jmm)

Case 2:15-cv-01541-CCW Document 386 Filed 12/22/21 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALEX REINIG, KEN GRITZ, BOB SODA,
MARY LOU GRAMESKY, PETER
WILDER SMITH, WILLIAM KINSELLA,
DANIEL KOLENDA, VALERIE DAL
PINO, AHMAD NAJI, ROBERT
PEDERSON, TERESA FRAGALE, DAVID
HOWARD, DANIEL JENKINS, MARK
ROSS,

2:15-CV-01541-CCW

Plaintiffs,
v.
RBS CITIZENS, N.A.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant RBS Citizens, N.A.’s,1 Motion for Leave to File
Documents Under Seal. See ECF No. 385. For the reasons that follow, Citizens’ Motion will be
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.

Background
On December 7, 8, and 9, 2021, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

Certification, during which both parties offered excerpts from depositions taken during discovery.
Following the hearing, the Court directed the parties “to file (1) ‘a final designation of excerpts
from depositions offered at the hearing (including any excerpts identified but not read or played

Citizens identifies itself in its Motion as “Defendant Citizens Bank, N.A.” Furthermore, in other recent filings,
Citizens has stated identified itself as “Defendant Citizens Bank, N.A. (incorrectly sued as RBS Citizens, N.A., and
hereinafter referred to as 'Citizens' or 'Defendant').” On December 6, 2021, the Court directed the parties to meet
and confer regarding the correct name for Citizens and, if appropriate, file a motion to modify the case caption. See
ECF No. 367. No such motion has been filed.
1

Case 2:15-cv-01541-CCW Document 386 Filed 12/22/21 Page 2 of 6

into the record at the hearing)’ and (2) ‘a written transcript of each deposition excerpt designated
by that party as a separate exhibit to that party's final list of designations.’ Separately, each party
is also to submit to chambers, ‘on CD or flash drive, any video deposition excerpts played during
the hearing.’” ECF No. 380.
Citizens initially attempted to file its deposition transcript excerpts under seal without first
obtaining permission to do so from the Court. See id (noting that pursuant to this District’s
standing order on the matter, “parties wishing to file documents under seal must obtain prior leave
of Court for each document that is requested to be filed under seal.”). The Court therefore struck
Citizens’ sealed filing. See id. Citizens now seeks leave to file its deposition transcript excerpts
under seal. See ECF No. 385.
In support of its Motion, Citizens argues generally that:
The Designation testimony Defendant offered at, or submitted in conjunction with,
the evidentiary hearing includes extensive information regarding Citizens’
proprietary and sensitive business information including compensation plans,
confidential policies, information from Plaintiffs’ personnel files, and Plaintiffs’
pay and attendance records, all of which the parties designated as “Confidential”
pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order the Court entered in
this case, and other applicable Orders of the Court permanently sealing such. See
Dkt. Nos. 46, 52, 105. The Designation testimony also contains extensive
information regarding Plaintiffs’ and Opt-In Plaintiffs’ private, personal financial
information, including but not limited to related to support obligations and other
sensitive personal data.
ECF No. 385, ¶ 6. Citizens further maintains that:
[T]he Designations contain sensitive personal, financial information about class
members, in particular, their earnings, how earnings were structured (wages versus
commissions) and amounts of each component, individual business plans within
markets, child support/family support obligations and compliance/noncompliance
with same, and related data which courts in this Circuit have held should be sealed.
Id., ¶ 8. Accordingly, Citizens concludes generally that “[n]either party will be prejudiced by the
granting of this Motion. If the Motion is not granted, however, each party, including named and
Opt-In or discovery plaintiffs, will be prejudiced.” Id., ¶ 10.

Case 2:15-cv-01541-CCW Document 386 Filed 12/22/21 Page 3 of 6

II.

Discussion
Under In re Avandia, 924 F.3d 662, 672–73 (3d Cir. 2019), “[a]nalytically distinct from the

District Court's ability to protect discovery materials under Rule 26(c)” (i.e., pursuant to a
protective order), is the presumption in favor of access to judicial materials and proceedings under
the common law and First Amendment. And, while “‘[t]he First Amendment right of access
requires a much higher showing than the common law right [of] access before a judicial proceeding
can be sealed,’” both require that the party seeking sealing must demonstrate “‘that the material is
the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure will work a clearly defined and
serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id. (quoting In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 198
n.13 (3d Cir. 2001) and Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)).
The common law right of access attaches to a particular document or record when it becomes
a “judicial record;” that is, when the document or record “‘has been filed with the court . . . or
otherwise somehow incorporated or integrated into a district court's adjudicatory proceedings.’”
Id. at 672 (quoting In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d at 192). The deposition transcript excerpts at
issue here—many of which were put into the record at a public hearing and all of which are being
offered by Citizens in opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification—are “judicial
records,” as that term is defined under In re Avandia. Once the common law right of access
attaches, “‘[t]here is a presumptive right of public access to pretrial motions of a nondiscovery
nature, whether preliminary or dispositive, and the material filed in connection therewith.’” Id. at
672 (quoting In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d at 192–93).
Beginning with this “strong presumption,” the Court concludes that Citizens, with limited
exceptions, has not met its “burden of showing ‘that the interest in secrecy outweighs the

Case 2:15-cv-01541-CCW Document 386 Filed 12/22/21 Page 4 of 6

presumption.’”2 Id. at 672 (quoting Bank of Am. Nat'l Tr. & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse
Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). First, Citizens argues that the transcripts at issue here
contain information “regarding Citizens’ proprietary and sensitive business information including
compensation plans [and] confidential policies.” ECF No. 385, ¶ 6. A showing that business
information is merely confidential—without more—is insufficient to overcome the presumption
in favor of access. See In re Avandia, 924 F.3d at 679 n.14 (noting that “GSK has not claimed that
any of the sealed documents contain trade secrets — a noted exception to the presumption of public
access. Confidential business information ‘is not entitled to the same level of protection from
disclosure as trade secret information.’”) (quoting Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse
Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 663 (3d Cir. 1991)).
Next, while certain “information from Plaintiffs’ personnel files, and Plaintiffs’ pay and
attendance records” may be of the type courts will protect—e.g. personal identifying information
such as a home address, date of birth, or social security number, or personal financial information
such as account numbers or account balances, see, e.g., LCvR 5.2.D—Citizens has not articulated
why sealing of the transcript excerpts in full (rather than redacting or modifying personal
identifying or financial information as per our Local Rules) is necessary. Indeed, having reviewed
the deposition excerpts offered at the class certification hearing, it appears to the Court that the
testimony at issue here focused primarily on the named and opt-in Plaintiffs’ understanding of
Citizens’ overtime reporting policy and why the deponent did or did not report overtime or
complain to their manager(s). To the extent personal identifying information or personal financial

2

Because we conclude that Citizens, in general, has not met its burden under the common law right of access, we
need not address whether the deposition excerpts at issue here could be sealed subject to the First Amendment right
of access.

Case 2:15-cv-01541-CCW Document 386 Filed 12/22/21 Page 5 of 6

information appears in the deposition excerpts, such information should be redacted in copies filed
on the public docket, and unredacted versions should be submitted separately to the Court.
Finally, while the Court recognizes that the information Citizens seeks to file under seal
now is the subject of prior sealing orders in this case entered by the then-presiding judicial officer,
see ECF No. 385, ¶ 6 (citing ECF Nos. 46, 52, 105), those orders were entered before In re Avandia
was decided and did not subject the information subject to those sealing orders to the level of
scrutiny required under In re Avandia. Indeed, in the only post-Avandia decision cited by Citizens
in support of its Motion, the court ordered redaction of personal identifying and financial
information, not full sealing of the relevant records. See Three Bros. Supermarket v. United States,
No. 2:19-cv-2003-KSM, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176439 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 25, 2020) (ordering that
“the Government shall file a revised version of the redacted administrative record. Consistent with
the Court's Memorandum Opinion, the Government should redact only identifying and financial
information [for specified parties]. The redacted administrative record will be made publicly
available.”).
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Citizens’ Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal,

ECF No. 385, is hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Citizens shall redact from
the deposition transcript excerpts filed on the public docket only personal identifying and personal
financial information. Unredacted versions should be submitted separately to the Court. See
LCvR 5.2.D–F.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2021.

Case 2:15-cv-01541-CCW Document 386 Filed 12/22/21 Page 6 of 6

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Christy Criswell Wiegand
CHRISTY CRISWELL WIEGAND
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record