Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—1st Cir.: ALJ did not err in denying manufacturer’s motion to seal balance sheet, (Nov 21, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The manufacturer alleged that multiple line items in its balance sheet would provide competitors with its confidential information.

An Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission administrative law judge did not abuse her discretion in denying a manufacturer’s motion for leave to seal its 2019 balance sheet, which it submitted with its fee application under the Equal Access to Justice Act after certain OSHRC safety citations against it were vacated or withdrawn, the First Circuit found. The manufacturer waived its argument that the ALJ erred by applying common-law balancing tests instead of the OSH Act. The ALJ correctly reasoned that the balance sheet was “foundational” to the question of the manufacturer's EAJA eligibility and that the public has an interest in reviewing the expenditure of public funds under the Act. The ALJ also properly found the manufacturer’s private interests insufficient to outweigh the presumption of public access ( Riverdale Mills Corp. v. Chavez-DeRemer , No. 24-1575 (1st Cir. Nov. 20, 2025)).

Manufacturer of wire mesh fabrics. The plaintiff, according to the court, manufactures wire mesh fabrics at its Northbridge, Massachusetts factory.

OSHA investigations and citations. In 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted two investigations into the employer’s facility. The first resulted in a citation issued on September 26, 2019, alleging violations of multiple safety standards of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act). The second led to a citation issued on December 13, 2019, alleging violations of multiple health standards of the OSH Act.

Some health and safety violations vacated or withdrawn. The employer contested the health and safety violations in a consolidated hearing held before an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) administrative law judge (ALJ) in June and August 2021, and in July 2022, the ALJ affirmed three of the citations. The remaining citation items were vacated or withdrawn.

EAJA application. Then, in December 2023, the employer filed an application before the ALJ seeking recovery of $223,064.74 in fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504.

The purpose of the EAJA, enacted in 1980, is “to eliminate the barriers that prohibit small businesses and individuals from securing vindication of their rights in civil actions and administrative proceedings brought by or against the Federal Government.” The EAJA accordingly permits an “eligible” party to recover attorneys’ fees and other expenses upon prevailing in an adjudicative agency proceeding, unless the agency's position was “substantially justified” or “special circumstances make an award unjust.” 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1)-(2).

“[E]ligible” party. An eligible party, in turn, is defined in OSHRC's regulations implementing the EAJA as a business with a net worth not exceeding $7 million and no more than 500 employees at the time the adjudication commenced. 29 C.F.R. § 2204.201.

An OSHRC ALJ initially hears and decides the fee application. The applicant may then seek review of the ALJ's decision by the OSHRC itself.

“[D]etailed exhibit.” To demonstrate eligibility under OSHRC regulations an EAJA applicant must submit a “detailed exhibit” disclosing its net worth at the time the OSHRC adjudication began. The exhibit “may be in any form convenient to the applicant that provides full disclosure of the applicant's assets and liabilities and is sufficient to determine” whether the applicant meets the regulations’ eligibility criteria.

Public disclosure and objections. “Ordinarily, the net worth exhibit will be included in the public record of the proceeding,” according to the court. However, “an applicant that objects to public disclosure of information in any portion of the exhibit and believes there are legal grounds for withholding it from disclosure may request that the documents be filed under seal or otherwise be treated as confidential.”

Motion for leave to file under seal. On December 20, 2023, alongside its EAJA fee application, the employer submitted a motion for leave to file its EAJA exhibit under seal. The motion stated that Riverdale planned to submit its comparative balance sheet as of December 2019 to establish its EAJA eligibility, but sought to do so under seal because the balance sheet contained “confidential business information,” including Riverdale's “current liabilities, long term liabilities, and shareholders' equity,” disclosure of which “would affect [Riverdale's] business prospects and may impact future opportunities.”

Secretary of Labor’s opposition. On January 3, 2024, the Secretary of Labor opposed Riverdale's motion. The Secretary argued that Riverdale had not shown the requisite “legal grounds for withholding” the balance sheet because it “fail[ed] to articulate why disclosure of any specific information in the net worth exhibit will cause specific harm, let alone justify sealing the entire document.”

Reply brief and confidential information. On January 22, 2024, the employer filed a reply and a declaration of its chief financial officer (CFO). The reply and declaration alleged that multiple line items in the balance sheet would provide competitors with Riverdale's confidential information. According to the declaration, the 2019 balance sheet included Riverdale's amounts of accounts receivable, product inventory, equipment value, accounts payable, available credit, and long-term liabilities and debt as of 2019, all of which competitors allegedly could use to glean information about Riverdale's financial status, vulnerabilities, and ability to compete in the marketplace.

ALJ’s decision. The ALJ denied Riverdale's motion to seal in a written decision of March 29, 2024. The ALJ first concluded that the balance sheet qualified as a judicial record because “the Court will rely on it to determine whether Riverdale meets the definition of [a] party under EAJA.”

Accordingly, the ALJ found that “the common law presumption of public access to judicial records attached to the balance sheet.” The ALJ held that Riverdale did not establish the necessary “compelling reasons” for overcoming this presumption or for defeating 29 C.F.R. § 2204.302(b)'s directive that “ordinarily” the net worth exhibit will be included in the public record.

Petition for interlocutory review and lack of quorum. On April 5, 2024, Riverdale filed a petition for interlocutory review before the Commission, and on May 6, 2024, the Commission automatically denied the petition because it then lacked a quorum. Here, the appeals court noted that the commission continues to lack a quorum.

Appeal to First Circuit. Then, on June 13, 2024, the employer appealed to the First Circuit. On July 22, 2024, the court clerk's office issued an order requiring Riverdale to show cause as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the Commission's denial did “not appear to be a ‘final order’ under 29 U.S.C. § 660(a),” and on April 2, 2025, the appeals court ordered that the petition “may proceed to briefing, with all gating issues reserved to the ultimate merits panel.”

Interlocutory jurisdiction assumed. The First Circuit initially observed that the ALJ's denial of Riverdale's motion to seal was an interlocutory order, which is generally not immediately reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Since neither party fully briefed the issue, however, and “the outcome would be the same regardless,” the appeals court assumed the existence of interlocutory jurisdiction over the appeal.

Waiver of common law displacement argument. The appeals court next found that Riverdale waived its argument that the OSH Act displaces the common law. On appeal, the employer argued that the ALJ erred by applying common-law balancing tests instead of the OSH Act itself, 29 U.S.C. § 664, to its motion to seal. However, Riverdale failed to raise this argument before the ALJ, and the argument was thus waived on appeal.

No abuse of discretion. Nor did the ALJ abuse her discretion in denying the employer’s motion for leave to file under seal, according to the First Circuit. “Under the common law,” the appeals court noted, “there is a long-standing presumption of public access to judicial records,” and the applicable OSHRC regulations expressly provide that EAJA exhibits will be available to the public unless the applicant files a motion to seal based on “legal grounds.” 29 C.F.R. § 2204.302(b).

In this context, the appeals court found, the ALJ correctly reasoned that the balance sheet was “foundational” to the question of Riverdale's eligibility and that the public has an interest in reviewing the expenditure of public funds under the EAJA. Riverdale’s claim to be “one of the largest manufacturers of welded wire mesh in the world” further highlighted the public’s interest in this determination, according to the First Circuit.

The ALJ also did not abuse her discretion, according to the appeals court, in finding that Riverdale's private interests were insufficient to outweigh the presumption of public access. The ALJ concluded that the private interests at stake deserved less weight because only company leadership, rather than a third party, objected to disclosure of the exhibit. As Riverdale acknowledged, third-party objections typically receive greater weight under the balancing test enunciated in United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317-22 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Additionally, the 2019 balance sheet contained only corporate financial information, not sensitive data such as medical or customer records. Finally, the ALJ could not even fully assess the potential prejudice to Riverdale because Riverdale failed even to submit the balance sheet for in camera review.

The petition for interlocutory review was thus denied.

The case is No. 24-1575.

Judge: Lynch, S.

Attorneys: Joshua D. Nadreau (Fisher & Phillips) for Riverdale Mills Corp. Edmund C. Baird, U.S. Department of Labor, for Lori Chavez-Deremer.

Companies: Riverdale Mills Corp.

Cases: Procedure Safety AttorneysFees MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews