Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America Local 556

Filing 217

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Order denying 171 , 196 , 199 Sealed and/or Ex Parte Motions. The Court ORDERS the parties to follow the Court's instructions for filing, redacting, and sealing the various documents and the information that they contain. The Court denies the request to seal any documents outright. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 1/31/2022) (mjr)

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 1 of 15 PageID 7053

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CHARLENE CARTER,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
v.
§
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., and
§
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF §
AMERICA, LOCAL 556,
§
§
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-02278-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are three motions for leave to file under seal.1 The Court has
analyzed the proposed sealed documents line-by-line and page-by-page, weighing the
public’s right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.

The Court

ORDERS the parties to follow the Court’s instructions for filing, redacting, and
sealing the various documents and the information that they contain.2 The Court
denies the request to seal any documents outright. However, the Court allows partial
redaction of some of the information.

1 Plaintiff Charlene Carter’s motion for leave to file under seal her brief and appendix exhibits
in support of her motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. No. 171], plaintiff’s motion for leave to
file under seal her brief and appendix exhibits in support of her response to Southwest’s motion for
summary judgment [Doc. No. 196], and plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal her brief and
appendix exhibits in support of her response to Local 556’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No.
199]. Although it is technically the plaintiff moving to seal, none of the information is hers, she does
not support sealing any of it, and she “knows no reason why the information she seeks to file cannot
be made publicly available.” [Doc. No. 171 at 3.] Instead, she moves to file under seal for the benefit
of Southwest and Local 556, who designated the documents the information “confidential” during
discovery. That means that Southwest and Local 556 bear the burden of overcoming the Court’s
presumption against sealing judicial records.

If and to the extent that the parties believe that this Order differs from a prior sealing order
of the Court, the parties shall follow this Order.
2

1

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

I.

Page 2 of 15 PageID 7054

Governing Law

The Court takes very seriously its duty to protect the public’s access to judicial
records.3 Transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental element of the rule
of law—so fundamental that sealing and unsealing orders are immediately
appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.4 The public’s right to access judicial
records is independent from—and sometimes even adverse to—the parties’ interest.5
That’s why the judge must serve as the representative of the people and, indeed, the
First Amendment, in scrutinizing requests to seal.
Litigants may very well have a legitimate interest in confidential discovery
secured by a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). However,
“[t]hat a document qualifies for a protective order under Rule 26(c) for discovery says
nothing about whether it should be sealed once it is placed in the judicial record.”6
Here, the parties conducted discovery under a Rule 26(c) protective order and marked
various documents “confidential.” Now that a party wishes to file some of those
documents under seal on the judicial record, a much more strenuous standard kicks
in.
“To decide whether something should be sealed, the court must undertake a
document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of
access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”7

The presumption against

3

See Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021).

4

June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th 512, 2022 WL 72074, at *4 (5th Cir. 2022).

5

Id. at *5.

6

Id. at *6.

7

Id. (cleaned up).

2

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 3 of 15 PageID 7055

sealing is even greater where, as here, “the case involves matters of particularly
public interest.”8 If the Court seals information, it must give sufficient reasons to
allow for appellate review.9
II.

Motion 171

The plaintiff moves for leave to file under seal her brief in support of and
various exhibits attached to her motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
orders redactions and filing as follows.
A. The plaintiff’s brief10
The Court denies the request to seal and/or redact the plaintiff’s brief in
support of her motion for partial summary judgment.
B. Signature Verification Committee Timeline of Events11
Local 556 designated these pages confidential during discovery but has failed
to file anything in support of sealing these documents. Regardless, the Court finds
that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the public’s
interest in seeing it on the judicial record, so the Court denies the request to seal
and/or redact this exhibit.
C. Travel Request Forms12
Local 556 designated these pages confidential during discovery but has failed
to file anything in support of sealing these documents. Regardless, the Court finds

8

Id. at *5 (cleaned up).

9

Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419.

10

Doc. No. 171-1.

11

Doc. No. 171-3, App. 16–18, Exhibit G.

12

Doc. No. 171-4, App. 58–67, Exhibit L.

3

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 4 of 15 PageID 7056

that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the public’s
interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the request to
outright seal this exhibit.
However, the Court will allow Local 556 to redact non-party names, employee
ID numbers, and dates of hire, and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff for her to
file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary judgment. The Court allows the
redaction because the information discloses non-party and private employment
identification information, the plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in
her motion for partial summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the
names of the non-party employees does not outweigh the non-party employees’
privacy interest.
D. Local 556 Profit and Loss Worksheet13
Local 556 designated these pages confidential during discovery but has failed
to file anything in support of sealing these documents. This exhibit is almost entirely
unreadable. The Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do
not outweigh the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court
denies the request to seal and/or redact this exhibit.
E. Fact Finding Meeting Notes from interview with Audrey Stone14
The Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not
outweigh the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court

13

Doc. No. 171-5, App. 68–72, Exhibit M.

14

Doc. No. 171-6, App. 114–116, Exhibit S.

4

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

denies the request to outright seal this exhibit.

Page 5 of 15 PageID 7057

However, the Court will allow

Southwest to redact: any employee numbers, the names of non-parties (except Jeanna
Jackson) named on pages 114–16 and described as being subject to disciplinary
proceedings, and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of
the issuance of this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial
summary judgment.

The Court allows the redaction because the information

describes non-party employee disciplinary proceedings and reasons for termination,
the plaintiff does not rely on the non-party identities in her motion for partial
summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the non-party
employees does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
F. Deposition of Ed Schneider15
The Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not
outweigh the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court
denies the request to seal and/or redact this exhibit.
G. Deposition of Audrey Stone16
Local 556 designated Audrey Stone’s entire deposition confidential during
discovery, but has failed to file anything in support of sealing it. Regardless, the
Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the
public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the request
to outright seal this exhibit. However, the Court will allow Local 556 to redact the

15

Doc. No. 171-7, App. 377, Exhibit DD.

16

Doc. No. 171-8, App. 410–467, Exhibit FF.

5

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 6 of 15 PageID 7058

names of non-party employees discussed in the deposition as having been disciplined,
and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance of
this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary judgment.
The Court allows the redaction because the information discloses private and
sensitive information about non-party employee disciplinary proceedings, the
plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in her motion for partial summary
judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the non-party employees
does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
H. Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Jessica Parker17
Local 556 designated Jessica Parker’s entire testimony confidential during
discovery but has failed to file anything in support of sealing it. Regardless, the Court
finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the public’s
interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the request to
outright seal this exhibit. However, the Court will allow Local 556 to redact the
names of non-party employees discussed in the deposition as having been disciplined;
and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance of
this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary judgment.
The Court allows the redaction because the information discloses private and
sensitive information about non-party employee disciplinary proceedings, the
plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in her motion for partial summary

17

Doc. No. 171-9, App. 468–482, Exhibit GG.

6

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 7 of 15 PageID 7059

judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the non-party employees
does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
I. Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of John Parrott18
Local 556 designated John Parrott’s entire testimony confidential during
discovery but has failed to file anything in support of sealing it. Regardless, the Court
finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the public’s
interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the request to
outright seal this exhibit. However, the Court will allow Local 556 to redact the
names of non-party employees discussed in the deposition as having been disciplined;
and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance of
this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary judgment.
The Court allows the redaction because the information discloses private and
sensitive information about non-party employee disciplinary proceedings, the
plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in her motion for partial summary
judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the non-party employees
does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
J. Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Audrey Stone19
Local 556 designated Audrey Stone’s entire testimony confidential during the
discovery process, but has failed to file anything in support of sealing it. Regardless,
the Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh

18

Doc. No. 171-10, App. 483–501, Exhibit HH.

19

Doc. No. 171-11, App. 502–511, Exhibit II.

7

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 8 of 15 PageID 7060

the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the
request to outright seal this exhibit. However, the Court will allow Local 556 to
redact the names of non-party employees discussed in the deposition as having been
disciplined and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the
issuance of this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary
judgment. The Court allows the redaction because the information discloses private
and sensitive information about non-party employee disciplinary proceedings, the
plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in her motion for partial summary
judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the non-party employees
does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
K. Emails about alleged leak of confidential Local 556 vote and attempts to
remove named officials; social media posts20
This exhibit provides factual background about the recall effort. The Court
finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the public’s
interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the request to
outright seal this exhibit. However, the Court will allow Southwest to redact the
contact information (phone numbers, email addresses, etc.) of non-parties in the
exhibit, and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the
issuance of this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary
judgment. The Court allows the redaction because the information discloses nonparty and private information, the plaintiff does not rely on the non-party’s identity

20

Doc. No. 171-12, App. 532–548, Exhibit NN.

8

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 9 of 15 PageID 7061

in her motion for partial summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the
contact information of the non-party employees does not outweigh the non-party
employees’ privacy interest.
L. Email about disciplining non-party flight attendant21
This exhibit is referenced in the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment as evidence of Local 556 and Southwest’s alleged pattern of retaliation. The
Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh the
public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court does not allow
sealing of this exhibit. However, the Court will allow Southwest to redact the contact
information (phone numbers, email addresses, etc.) of non-parties in the exhibit, and
provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance of this
Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary judgment. The
Court allows the redaction because the information discloses non-party and private
information, the plaintiff does not rely on the contact information in her motion for
partial summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the contact
information of the non-party employees does not outweigh the non-party employees’
privacy interest.

21

Doc. No. 171-13, App. 549, Exhibit OO.

9

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

III.

Page 10 of 15 PageID 7062

Motion 196

The plaintiff also moves for leave to file under seal her brief in support of and
various exhibits attached to her response to defendant Southwest’s motion for
summary judgment. The Court instructs the parties to file as follows.
A. The plaintiff’s brief22
The Court denies the request to seal and/or redact the plaintiff’s brief in
support of her response to Southwest’s motion for summary judgment.
B. Excerpt from deposition of Audrey Stone23
This exhibit is an excerpt from a deposition of Local 556 president Audrey
Stone, in which Stone explains her view of why Local 556 members attended the
Women’s March, explains Stone’s understanding of Local 556 members’ views on
whether they were advocating for abortion by attending and participating in the
Women’s March, and states Stone’s views on abortion. Local 556 designated these
pages as confidential during discovery but has not filed anything in support of sealing
these pages. Regardless, the Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this
exhibit do not outweigh the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so
the Court denies the request to seal and/or redact these pages.
C. Excerpt from Local 556 Magazine24
Local 556’s magazine, including the particular issue and the specific pages that
Local 556 designated “confidential” during discovery, are publicly available on the

22

Doc. No. 196-1.

23

Doc. No. 196-2, App. 22–24, Exhibit B.

24

Doc. No. 196-3, App. 25–27, Exhibit C.

10

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 11 of 15 PageID 7063

internet. The Fifth Circuit has recently, unequivocally held that “[p]ublicly available
information cannot be sealed.”25 So the Court denies the request to seal and/or redact
these pages.
IV.

Motion 199

The plaintiff also moves for leave to file under seal her brief in support of and
various exhibits attached to her response to defendant Local 556’s motion for
summary judgment. The Court orders redactions and filing as follows.
A. The plaintiff’s brief26
The Court denies the request to seal and/or redact the plaintiff’s brief in
support of her response to Local 556’s motion for summary judgment.
B. Deposition testimony of Audrey Stone27
The Court addresses pages 7 and 8 of this exhibit in section III.B above. The
other pages of this exhibit are Stone’s deposition testimony explaining the structure
and purpose of Local 556’s “Contract Action Network” and non-party employee Brian
Talburt’s roles in Local 556. Local 556 designated these pages as confidential during
discovery but has not filed anything in support of sealing these pages. Regardless,
the Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this exhibit do not outweigh
the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so the Court denies the
request to seal and/or redact these pages.

25

June Med. Servs., 2022 WL 72074, at *6.

26

Doc. No. 199-1.

27

Doc. No. 199-2, App. 22–28, Exhibit B.

11

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 12 of 15 PageID 7064

C. Excerpt from Local 556 magazine28
The Court addresses this exhibit in section III.C above.
D. Rule 30(b)(6) testimony of Audrey Stone29
In this deposition excerpt, Audrey Stone discusses the plaintiff’s request to stop
her contributions to Local 556’s “Committee on Political Education” and email
responses by non-party employees to that request. Local 556 designated these pages
as confidential during discovery but has not filed anything in support of sealing these
pages. Regardless, the Court finds that any privacy interests implicated by this
exhibit do not outweigh the public’s interest in seeing them on the judicial record, so
the Court denies the request to seal and/or redact these pages.
E. Deposition of Maureen Emlet30
In this deposition, Emlet describes disciplinary proceedings against non-party
employees. The Court denies the request to outright seal this exhibit. However, the
Court will allow Southwest to redact the names of non-parties who were disciplined
and provide the redacted file to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance of
this Order for her to file as an exhibit to her motion for partial summary judgment.
The Court allows the redaction because the information is sensitive and discloses
non-party and private information, the plaintiff does not rely on or use the names in
her motion for partial summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the

28

Doc. No. 199-3, App. 29–31, Exhibit C.

29

Doc. No. 199-4, App. 32–38, Exhibit D.

30

Doc. No. 199-5, App. 39–51, Exhibit E.

12

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 13 of 15 PageID 7065

names of the non-party employees does not outweigh the non-party employees’
privacy interests.
F. Emails and social media posts31
This exhibit contains myriad documents, including a chart of social media
posts by Southwest flight attendants, emails discussing disciplinary proceedings
against various non-party employees, and many screenshots of social media posts
that were relevant to disciplinary proceedings.

Both Southwest and Local 556

designated pages of this exhibit “confidential” during discovery, but neither has filed
anything explaining to the Court why this exhibit should be sealed or directing the
Court to what information is sensitive enough to warrant sealing.
Consistent with the Court’s instructions on other exhibits in this order, the
Court denies the request to outright seal this exhibit. The Court will, however, allow
Southwest and Local 556 to redact non-party contact information (phone numbers,
email addresses, etc.) and the names of non-party employees discussed in the exhibit
as having been disciplined—except that Audrey Stone’s, Jeanna Jackson’s, Brian
Talburt’s, and Ricky Spand’s names shall not be redacted. Local 556 and Southwest
shall give the redacted version to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance
of this Order for her to file. The Court allows the redaction because the information
discloses private and sensitive information about non-party employee disciplinary
proceedings, the plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in her motion for

31

Doc. No. 199-6, App. 52–87, Exhibit F.

13

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 14 of 15 PageID 7066

partial summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the
non-party employees does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
G. Emails and social media posts32
Like exhibit F, this exhibit contains myriad documents, including emails
discussing disciplinary proceedings against various non-party employees and many
screenshots of social media posts that were relevant to disciplinary proceedings. And
like exhibit F, Local 556 designated pages of this exhibit “confidential” during
discovery but failed to file anything explaining to the Court why this exhibit should
be sealed or directing the Court to what information is sensitive enough to warrant
sealing.
Consistent with the Court’s instructions on other exhibits in this order, the
Court denies the request to outright seal this exhibit. The Court will, however, allow
Southwest and Local 556 to redact non-party contact information (phone numbers,
email addresses, etc.) and the names of non-party employees discussed in the exhibit
as having been disciplined—except that Audrey Stone’s, Jeanna Jackson’s, Brian
Talburt’s, and Ricky Spand’s names shall not be redacted. Local 556 and Southwest
shall give the redacted version to the plaintiff within 5 business days of the issuance
of this Order for her to file. The Court allows the redaction because the information
discloses private and sensitive information about non-party employee disciplinary
proceedings, the plaintiff does not rely on the non-parties’ identities in her motion for

32

Doc. No. 199-7, App. 88–106, Exhibit G.

14

Case 3:17-cv-02278-X Document 217 Filed 01/31/22

Page 15 of 15 PageID 7067

partial summary judgment, and the public’s interest in knowing the names of the
non-party employees does not outweigh the non-party employees’ privacy interest.
V.

Conclusion

The Court ORDERS the parties to comply with the Court’s instructions
contained herein. The Court’s instructions are the result of a page-by-page, line-byline analysis. Such analysis “is not easy, but it is fundamental” to securing the
public’s right of access to judicial records.33
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2022.

___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

33

June Med. Servs., 2022 WL 72074, at *7.

15