Fairfax County, VA – In a move that raises significant concerns regarding transparency in legal proceedings, Plaintiff Mr. Osman and Defendants Sherpa LLC d/b/a evolve24 and KG&P Strategies, Inc. have jointly filed a motion for a Protective Order in the Fairfax County Circuit Court (Case No. CL24-352). This motion is intended to regulate the handling of sensitive information during the ongoing discovery process, yet it highlights the Defendants' attempts to obscure critical evidence.
The case revolves around Mr. Osman’s claims of wrongful termination based on sexual orientation. While both Parties recognize the necessity of protecting sensitive personal, confidential, and proprietary information, the Defendants are pushing for an overly broad “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation for certain documents. This designation, if granted, would severely limit Mr. Osman’s access to information vital to his defense, effectively keeping him in the dark about the allegations that led to his termination.
Defendants' Position:
The Defendants argue that some documents are so sensitive that their release could jeopardize the integrity of internal investigations, particularly one involving Noah Howerton, a former employee who filed a complaint against Mr. Osman. The Defendants also argue that the attorney eyes only designation is necessary to protect the safety of its employees. According to the Defendant, an Employer has a duty to protect the confidentiality of those employees who have filed claims of discrimination against other employees.
Plaintiff's Position:
Mr. Osman asserts that the “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation violates his rights to access information relevant to his case and that transparency is crucial for a fair legal process. Mr. Osman emphasizes that the relationship between the internal complaint made by Noah Howerton and the subsequent actions taken against him is clear. He states that, according to the transitive property, the cause-and-effect relationship is evident: the complaint (C) led to accusations of retaliation (B), which ultimately resulted in his termination (A). Thus, the root cause of his termination can be traced directly back to the allegations made by Noah Howerton, making it imperative for him to review the evidence related to those allegations.
In an effort to expedite judicial proceedings and maintain fairness, the Parties have agreed to submit their respective proposals to the Court for consideration. Each proposal seeks to strike a balance between confidentiality and Mr. Osman’s right to access relevant evidence.
Next Steps:
The Court will review the Joint Motion and evaluate both the Defendants' and Mr. Osman’s proposals for the Protective Order. A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
