“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- “Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATING AND
CONSULTING AGENCY, INC.
d/b/a PICA Corporation,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:19-cv-3304
v. Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
SOS SECURITY LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on two Motions to Seal exhibits to Vincent Volpi’s
deposition. (Docs. 60, 61). Plaintiff moves to seal Exhibits Z, DD, EE, GG, and HH. (Doc. 60).
Defendants move to seal Exhibits C and K. (Doc. 61). For the reasons that follow, both Motions
(Doc. 60, 61) are GRANTED.
I. 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 Michigan,
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); see also Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at
305 (“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation
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). If there is a compelling reason, “the party must then show why those reasons outweigh
the public interest in access to those records.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x
635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305). The Court “has an obligation to
keep its records open for public inspection [and] that obligation is not conditioned upon the desires
of the parties to the case.” Harrison v. Proctor & Gamble Co., No. 1:15-CV-514, 2017 WL
11454396, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2017) (citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 307.). The court
“that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify
nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d
at 1176).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and Defendant each move to seal certain exhibits to Vincent Volpi’s deposition
which contain confidential business information. (Doc. 60, 61). They have submitted the exhibits
for review via email. (See Doc. 62). Upon review, the Court concludes that the parties have met
their burden to seal.
Plaintiff moves to seal five exhibits. Three exhibits, Z, DD, and EE, “detail the terms of
an acquisition process” which discloses financial data, negotiations for the purchase of the
company, clients, vendors, and pricing. (Doc. 60 at 7). Two exhibits, GG and HH, “relate to the
Liberty Mutual Olympics Proposal” which includes “pricing strategy and specific costs related to
the protection detail.” (Id. at 8). Defendant moves to seal two exhibits, C and K, which contain
their proposal to acquire Plaintiff. (Doc. 61 at 4). This proposal includes pricing information and
business strategy. (Id.).
They represent that disclosure on the public docket of this confidential business
information would put them at a competitive disadvantage. (Docs. 60 at 1, 61 at 4). This Court
has recognized that companies have a compelling interest in protecting confidential information
when disclosure on the public docket would “give a significant advantage to competitors of the
parties in this action.” Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Riffe, No. 1:19-CV-23, 2020 WL 5849408,
at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020); see also Lucid Health, Inc. v. Premier Imaging Ventures, LLC,
No. 2:20-CV-1055, 2021 WL 128956, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2021); Ewalt v. GateHouse Media
Ohio Holding II, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-4262, 2022 WL 1080772, *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2022). The
parties have met the burden to justify sealing these documents because they contain confidential
business information, including confidential pricing information and business strategy. (See Doc.
60 at 7–8, 61 at 4). Further, the parties’ requests are narrowly tailored to protect confidential
business strategy and financial information. They only seek to seal exhibits containing such
information. Lastly, the public has a lesser interest in viewing this confidential business
information because it is not needed to understand the events giving rise to the dispute or the
arguments in the case. See Ewalt v. GateHouse Media Ohio Holding II, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-4262,
2020 WL 6110569, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 16, 2020).
Accordingly, the parties have satisfied their burden to seal the exhibits by demonstrating
that there is a compelling interest to seal that outweighs the public interest and the seal is narrowly
tailored. See Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 637.
III. CONCLUSION
The Motions to file exhibits Z, DD, EE, GG, HH, C, and K under seal (Doc. 60, 61) are
GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to give the parties permission to file the exhibits under
SEAL. The parties SHALL file the exhibits by September 29, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: September 22, 2022 s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE