The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
LUCID HEALTH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 2:20-cv-1055
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson
PREMIER IMAGING VENTURES, LLC,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal. (Doc. 31). For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s unopposed Motion is GRANTED, and
Defendant may file under seal the portions of the expert report and corresponding documents
discussed in this Opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a trademark infringement action between Plaintiff Lucid Health, Inc., a business
and market research and consulting firm in the health care and health care products industry and
Defendant Premier Imaging Ventures, LLC, which offers medical practice management services.
(See generally Doc. 1). The parties are currently engaging in expert discovery. (See Doc. 29).
Defendant seeks to file under seal portions of its expert’s report, asserting that it contains
“confidential and proprietary information.” (Doc. 31 at 1). Defendant filed a redacted version of
the expert report (Doc. 31-1) and submitted an unredacted version to the Court for in camera
review. Specifically, Defendant seeks to file under seal:
fewer than twelve words from Paragraphs 28 and 30 consisting of a provision from
Defendant’s Management Services Agreement, a highly confidential contract executed
between Defendant and each of its customers;
roughly twelve line items from Paragraph 41 containing the identities of Defendant’s
prospective customers who have executed non-disclosure agreements while
negotiations take place;
four line items from Paragraph 47 n. 54 containing Defendant’s marketing financial
information;
fewer than three words from Paragraph 48 containing Defendant’s marketing financial
information;
Paragraphs 60 and 61 containing Defendant’s revenue and revenue forecasting
information;
Paragraph 106 containing Defendant’s expansion plans; and
roughly 17 documents cited within the expert report containing, inter alia, Defendant’s
marketing, revenue, and forecasting information.
(Doc. 31 at 1–2).
II. STANDARD
Courts distinguish between limiting public disclosure of information during discovery
versus the adjudicative stage of a case. See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich.,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). “The line between these two stages, discovery and adjudicative,
is crossed when the parties place material in the court record.” Id. (citing Baxter Int’l, Inc. v.
Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)). “Unlike information merely exchanged between
the parties, ‘[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court
record.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,
710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). For this reason, the moving party has a “heavy” burden of
overcoming a “‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp., 825
F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179). “Only the most compelling reasons
can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quotation marks
omitted).
“[I]n civil litigation, only trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege
(such as the attorney-client privilege), and information required by statute to be maintained in
confidence (such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault), is typically enough to
overcome the presumption of access.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308 (citation and quotations
omitted). “[T]he seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve” the reason for sealing, which
requires the moving party to “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy,
providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305–06 (quotation omitted). Ultimately, the movant
must show that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury … And in delineating
the injury to be prevented, specificity is essential.” Id. at 307–08 (internal citations and quotations
omitted). Similarly, the court “that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings
and conclusions which justify nondisclosure.” Id. at 306 (quotation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant asserts that the items at issue, produced in discovery, contain its confidential
and commercially sensitive business and financial information. (Doc. 31 at 3). More specifically,
that they contain revenue and sales data, financial calculations and forecasts, and potential
customers with whom Defendant has executed non-disclosure agreements. (Id.). So, says
Defendant, disclosure of these items would harm its competitive business interests. (Id.).
“This Court has repeatedly held that companies have a compelling interest in protecting
such information from their competitors—especially where, as here, disclosure would cause a
competitive disadvantage.” London Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-696, 2019 WL
4110516, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019) (citing Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.,
No. 1:11-CV-871, 2017 WL 4168290, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2017) (“This Court has
previously recognized that protecting confidential information that would otherwise allow
competitors an inside look at a company’s business strategies is a compelling reason to restrict
public access to filings.”); Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Ranir, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-185, 2017 WL
3537195, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (granting motion to seal documents containing “market
share data, sales trends and analysis, customer preferences, confidential agreements, pricing
strategy, and marketing strategy”)).
Defendant has met its burden to justify sealing the items at issue. As noted, these portions
of the expert report and corresponding documents contain information that would provide
competitors with an inside look at Defendant’s business strategies and potential customers. For
example, Paragraphs 60 and 61 of the expert report disclose confidential revenue forecasting
information, and the documents cited within the expert report contain, for example, Defendant’s
contracts with marketing analysis firms for strategic purposes, including expansion. (Doc. 31 at
5–6).
Finally, the Court notes that Defendant seeks to seal only discrete portions of the expert
report, along with 17 documents cited therein, so its request is sufficiently narrowly tailored to
serve the compelling reasons justifying redaction. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. Indeed, the
total redactions consist of less than one page of the sixty-page expert report. (See Doc. 31-1).
In sum, Defendant has set forth compelling reasons to seal discrete portions of its expert
report.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s unopposed Motion (Doc. 31) is GRANTED, and
Defendant may file the portions of its expert report and corresponding documents discussed in this
Opinion under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: January 14, 2021 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE