Langley v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 134

ORDER DENYING 71 Motion to Redact re 54 Transcript. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (dm)

Case 1:18-cv-00443-LY Document 134 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JONATHAN LANGLEY
VS.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION

§
§
§
§
§
§

NO. A-18-CV-443-LY

ORDER
Before the Court is IBM’s Motion to Redact (Dkt. No. 71). By the motion, IBM requests that
the Court order certain portions of the transcript of a discovery hearing in this case that took place
on January 17, 2019, redacted. IBM’s specific request, and the basis for it are set forth here:
During the hearing, counsel for both parties and the Court quoted from Exhibit 3 to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production. The Court previously ordered that, under
the Confidentiality and Protective Order currently in effect, Exhibit 3 should be
sealed. Accordingly, pursuant to the Court’s instruction . . . IBM asks that all quotes
from the sealed document be redacted from the hearing transcript. . . .
Dkt. No. 71 at 1 (docket entry citations omitted). The sequence of events mentioned require some
elaboration. IBM is correct that, when the document was attached to Langley’s motion to compel
he requested that it be filed under seal—at IBM’s request—and the Court granted that request. Dkt.
Nos. 22, 24. In doing so, however, the Court made no determination on the merits of IBM’s
contention that the contents of the document are confidential, but rather simply took at face value
IBM’s assertion that they are.
The present request to redact the transcript of the hearing forces the Court to actually look
more closely at the subject material. The hearing took place in an open courtroom, and the matters
discussed at that hearing were public. Moreover, the exhibit itself was not disclosed at the hearing,
but instead only isolated portions of the document, representing a tiny fraction of the whole, were
discussed. Having reviewed these discussions in the context of the overall hearing, the Court cannot

Case 1:18-cv-00443-LY Document 134 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 2

find anything therein that merits keeping these minor mentions of the document sealed. As this
Court has noted in prior cases, parties are not permitted to designate a document as confidential
simply because it contains “bad facts” for its case, and there is a strong common law right of access
to the proceedings in federal court . UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Grande Comm. Networks, Inc., 2018
WL 4561785 at *1.
For these reasons, IBM’s Motion to Redact (Dkt. No. 71) is DENIED, and should a transcript
of the hearing on January 17, 2019, be requested, all of the transcript shall be made available without
redaction.
SIGNED this 17th day of July, 2019.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2