Lawyers Go Low-Tech in GE Redaction
Printer-friendly
Email this Article
Reprints & PermissionsAll's quiet on the public front two weeks after the Law Tribune uncovered serious redaction errors in court briefs for a federal sex discrimination lawsuit against Fairfield, Conn.-based General Electric.
Neither side cared to further discuss how the errors occurred or to provide details as to how the problems were handled after the Washington, D.C., firm of Sanford, Wittels & Heisler, who is representing the plaintiff, improperly redacted supposedly confidential information in Schaefer v. GE.
Anyone who accessed certain briefs on that docket through the PACER federal filing system could copy black bars that appeared on PDFs and paste them into a Word document, thus revealing the text that was hidden behind the black bars on the screen.
After learning of the errors in late May, Sanford, Wittels & Heisler scrambled to make emergency re-filings in federal court in New Haven.
The firm seemed to ensure that the information was inaccessible by printing the briefs off of PACER, complete with the black bars covering the text, and then re-scanning those documents into the federal filing system. By doing so, the attorneys made it impossible to navigate the PDF by clicking one's cursor into the text of the brief.
This was a low-tech way to deal with an issue that's full of potential technological landmines. Certainly, it's cheaper than buying and installing software that is designed to electronically redact information.
When discussing the mistakes on May 22, Sanford offered to provide the following week a more complete explanation of the process his paralegals used to redact the information. But when reached by phone last Tuesday, he politely declined to divulge those details.
"We've done what we needed to do," Sanford said in a brief conversation. Both parties are satisfied that "no harm" came from the mistakes, he added.
GE would not confirm their level of satisfaction.
"We will not have further comment," said spokesman Gary Sheffer.
Judge Peter C. Dorsey denied GE's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on May 8, and the two sides were in mediation when the redaction errors were made public.
Lorene F. Schaefer, a lawyer in the company's Erie, Pa.-based GE Transportation, accused company officials in her lawsuit of giving unfair preference to men in promotions to top-paying legal jobs.
The class action lawsuit potentially seeks damages of $500 million. It also seeks an injunction to halt GE's pay and promotion policies and practices, and names Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Counsel Brackett B. Denniston III and numerous other executives as defendants.
Schaefer filed the lawsuit in April 2007 after learning that she was to be demoted from her job as GE Transportation's top legal officer. She was placed on paid administrative leave in May 2007 after complaining about her demotion.
Schaefer had been an entry-level executive since 1997, and a GE employee since 1994.
