Howington v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 5:24-cv-05684

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against several entities affiliated with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, and citizenship in employment practices.
The allegations include claims that TSMC subjects non-East Asian employees to a hostile work environment and discriminates in hiring and promotion.
Plaintiffs assert class claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (race discrimination, disparate treatment, hostile work environment) and § 2000e-2 (disparate treatment, disparate impact, hostile work environment), with some plaintiffs also asserting retaliation claims.
Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC); TSMC moves to seal certain paragraphs of the proposed SAC, arguing they are irrelevant and potentially damaging.
TSMC contends public disclosure of the contested paragraphs may cause reputational harm and affect U.S. interests given its market position; plaintiffs argue the allegations provide important context for their claims.
The court grants in part and denies in part TSMC’s request, permitting public filing of most challenged allegations but requiring two paragraphs describing unproven sexual assaults to be filed under seal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for sealing judicial records	Disclosure is in public interest; allegations are relevant	Allegations are irrelevant, scandalous, and would cause undue harm	Compelling reasons not shown; only paragraphs on sexual assault sealed
Relevance of challenged SAC allegations	Provide necessary context and examples of discrimination	Irrelevant to claim, included for scandal; may confuse public	Plaintiffs provided rational basis, most allegations remain public
Potential harm from public disclosure	Matter of public concern, relevant to systemic issues	Disclosure could harm TSMC’s reputation and U.S. interests	Potential reputational harm to non-parties warrants sealing only for sexual assault allegations
Gag order request on attorneys/plaintiffs	Should be allowed to comment publicly	Plaintiffs and counsel should be restricted from commenting	Denied; 1st Amendment protects public discussion except for sealed matters

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishes the presumption of public access to judicial records and compelling reasons standard for sealing)
Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (discusses balancing public’s right to access with interests in secrecy)
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (clarifies the "compelling reasons" standard for sealing documents more than tangentially related to the merits)