Opinion
1:22-CV-00417-DAE
07-17-2024
TEXAS ASSOCIATION FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE UNEMPLOYED, KATHRYN KAWAZOE, STEPHANIE STOUT, KIMBERLY HARTMAN, CHARLES HARMON, JESUS DUARTE, Plaintiffs v. EDWARD SERNA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; Defendant
ORDER
DUSTIN M. HOWELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Preserve Confidentiality Designations, Dkt. 95. The District Judge referred the motion to the undersigned for disposition. The Court set the motion for hearing, and after considering the parties' filings, the applicable law, and the parties' arguments at the hearing, the Court announced its rulings, and the reasons for them, on the record. This written order memorializes those rulings.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion, Dkt. 95. The only portions of the motion for which the Court is denying the motion are set out below and address records exchanged in discovery that presently appear in the Court's record and are filed under seal. In all other respects, the Court grants Defendant's motion.
Chapters 20, 22, and 26 of the TWC's Unemployment Benefits System Manual: DENIED. These documents appear at Dkts. 99-4 (Ch. 20), 99-6 (Ch. 22), and 68-4 (Ch. 26), respectively. Chapter 26 already appears unsealed on the record at Dkt. 684, so no further action is needed from the Clerk's Office with respect to this document. As for Dkts. 99-4 and 99-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk's Office to unseal these exhibits on the Court's record.
Benefits Letters 07-21 and 11-21: DENIED. These documents appear at Dkts. 99-7 and 99-8, respectively. The Court ORDERS the Clerk's Office to unseal these exhibits on the Court's record.
Excerpts from the Depositions of Charles Ross and Jason Stalinsky: GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART. These documents appear at Dkts. 97-11 and 99-5 (Ross), and 97-12 and 99-3 (Stalinsky). In addition to the passages that Plaintiffs concede should remain confidential and sealed (see bracketed portions of Dkts. 97-11 and 97-12), the Court concludes that the following passages may also retain their confidentiality designation and sealed status:
Ross:
• 70:5-8 (Dkts. 97-11, at 3; 99-5, at 70)
• 72:3-8 (Dkts. 97-11, at 5; 99-5 at 72)
• 72:20-73:3 (Dkts. 97-11, at 5-6; 99-5, at 72-73)
• 73:4-74:12 (Dkts. 97-11, at 6-7; 99-5, at 73-74)
Stalinsky
• 22:3-9 (Dkts. 97-12, at 9; 99-3, at 22)
• 22:19-25:2 (Dkts. 97-12, at 9-12; 99-3, at 22-25)
• 30:15-31:19 (Dkts. 97-12, at 17-18; 99-3, at 30-31)
• 34:18-39:12 (Dkts. 97-12, at 19-24; 99-3, at 34-39)
• 43:3-44:8 (Dkts. 97-12, at 28-29; 99-3, at 43-44)
• 51:2-52-2 (Dkts. 97-12, at 32-33; 99-3, at 51-52)
• 53:18-55:2 (Dkts. 97-12, at 34-36; 99-3, at 53-55)
• 88:5-13 (Dkts. 97-12, at 47; 99-3, at 88)
• 92:19-93-12 (Dkts. 97-12, at 49-50; 99-3, at 92-93)
The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to re-file these exhibits redacted as set out above. Once those have been filed, the Court FURTHER ORDERS the Clerk's Office to replace the exhibits at these docket locations unsealed with the newly redacted copies.