Niazi v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States
| Kamran Niazi |
| McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States |
| 1:2023cv11397 |
| June 22, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Jennifer C Boal |
| Richard G Stearns |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #23 Motion to Seal Document."Courts have long recognized that public monitoring of the judicial system fosters the important values of quality, honesty and respect for our legal system." United States v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 69 F.4th 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2023), quoting United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2013); accord Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) ("It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents."). There is a strong common law presumption favoring public access to judicial records. In re Salem Suede, Inc., 268 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2001). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must meet a "compelling reasons" standard. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). That is, "the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings... that outweigh the general history of access and public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Id. at 1178-1179 (internal quotations omitted). When determining whether this standard is met, it is the court's duty to "conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret." Id. at 1179 (internal quotations omitted); accord Depuy Orthopaedics, 2023 WL 3746534, at *9 (in deciding whether to seal documents, the court must "weigh the presumptively paramount right of the public to know against the competing private interests at stake") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "[I]f the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reasons and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (a), (b), (d-h). Here, the parties jointly move to seal certain portions of the First Amended Complaint. They have not, however, identified any specific proposed redactions, let alone articulated compelling reasons to support adopting each of these proposed redactions (generically stating, without further elaboration, that all client names in the document "are protected by the Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure provision" of plaintiff's employment contract does not suffice, see Mot. [Dkt # 23] at para. 3). The court accordingly will deny the motion, without prejudice to renew by August 25, 2023. Should the parties fail to file a renewed motion proposing specific redactions and explaining the need for those specific redactions by this date, the court will unseal the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. (RGS, law3) |
| Filing 23 Joint MOTION to Seal Document #22 Amended Complaint by Kamran Niazi.(Davis, John) |
| Filing 22 AMENDED COMPLAINT against McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, filed by Kamran Niazi.(Davis, John) Modified on 8/16/2023 to temporarily seal entry at parties' request. (Pacho, Arnold). |
| Filing 21 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #20 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to August 23, 2023 to File Amended Complaint. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 20 Assented to MOTION for Extension of Time to 8/23/23 to Amend Complaint by Kamran Niazi.(Davis, John) |
| Filing 19 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting #7 Motion to Dismiss. This dismissal is without prejudice, and the court will allow plaintiff twenty-one days to file a proposed Amended Complaint. (RGS, law3) |
| Filing 18 REPLY to Response to #7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States. (Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 17 Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #16 Motion for Leave to File a Reply brief. The Reply must be filed no later than Tuesday July 11, 2023, as the court is currently considering the motion to dismiss. (Zierk, Marsha) |
| Filing 16 Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Unopposed Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss by McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States.(Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 15 Refusal to Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 14 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Reassignment. Judge Richard G. Stearns assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal. (Danieli, Chris) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE by Kamran Niazi of Refusal (Davis, John) |
| Filing 12 ELECTRONIC NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Notification forms indicating whether or not a party has consented to proceed before a U.S. Magistrate Judge have not been received in the Clerk's Office. The submission of the form is mandatory. Completed forms shall be filed promptly. Additional forms can be obtained on the Court's web page at http://www.mad.uscourts.gov. (York, Steve) |
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Kamran Niazi. (Davis, John) |
| Filing 10 Opposition re #7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Kamran Niazi. (Davis, John) |
| Filing 9 STATE COURT Record. (Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 8 MEMORANDUM in Support re #7 MOTION to Dismiss filed by McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States. (Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Dismiss by McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States.(Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 6 Certified Copy of Notice of Removal Provided to Defense Counsel by Email. (Kelly, Danielle) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 4 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by McKinsey & Company, Inc. (Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine G. Rigby on behalf of McKinsey & Company, Inc (Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by McKinsey & Company, Inc ( Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number AMADC-9915043 Fee Status: Filing Fee paid) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Rigby, Katherine) |
| Filing 1 Civil Cover Sheet & Category Sheet by McKinsey & Company, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Category Form)(Rigby, Katherine) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Niazi v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kamran Niazi | |
| Represented By: | John W. Davis |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States | |
| Represented By: | Katherine G. Rigby |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
