# Automobile Consumer Services, Inc. v. PureCars Technologies, LLC

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · August 29, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380755

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** August 29, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380755

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION – CINCINNATI

AUTOMOBILE CONSUMER : Case No. 1:22-cv-476
SERVICES, INC., et al., :
: Judge Matthew W. McFarland
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
PURECARS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, :
:
Defendant. :
:
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL (Doc. 7)
______________________________________________________________________________
On August 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint and multiple different exhibits.
(Compl., Doc. 1.) The case is now before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc.
7), wherein Defendant requests that the Court instructs the Clerk to remove Exhibit A to
Plaintiff’s Complaint from the public docket and electronically file the exhibit under seal.
Federal courts have long recognized a strong presumption in favor of openness
which can only be overcome by “the most compelling reasons.” Shane Group., Inc. v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Knoxville News-
Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, “[t]he burden of overcoming
that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal them.” Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983). “To meet this burden, the party
must show three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the
interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the
request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App'x 635, 637 (6th
Cir. 2019). To do so, the party must “analyze in detail, document by document, the

propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. (citing Shane Group., 825
F.3d at 305). And typically, in civil litigation, only trade secrets, information covered by
a recognized privilege, and information required by statute to be maintained in
confidence is typically enough to overcome this presumption. Shane Group., 825 F.3d at
305.

Considering the proprietary nature of the exhibit to Plaintiff’s Complaint,
Defendant has demonstrated that (1) compelling interests exist to seal the exhibit, (2) such
interests outweigh the public’s interest in accessing the exhibit, and (3) Defendant’s

request is narrowly tailored. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 7) is
GRANTED. The Clerk is INSTRUCTED to remove Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Complaint
from the public docket and electronically file the exhibit under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

By: /s/ Matthew W. McFarland
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10380755. Public record. Not legal advice.