The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TERA II, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-2221
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
v. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al.,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ renewed motions to file documents under
seal (Docs. 543, 544). Defendants previously filed versions of these motions, which the Court
denied without prejudice. (See Doc. 541). Defendants now seek leave to file the following
redacted documents: an employee severance agreement accompanying their Motion to Disqualify
Counsel (Docs. 543, 537) and an expert report by Thomas Jordan accompanying their Motion to
Strike (Docs. 544, 538). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motions 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). To overcome this presumption,
parties who move to seal documents must demonstrate the three elements laid out in Shane Group:
“(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).
“[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). Courts will also “take seriously” “the privacy interests of innocent third parties[.]” Id.
“[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).
II. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to file a redacted employee severance agreement and argue that the
proposed redactions will protect Defendants’ privacy. (Doc. 543 at 1–2). Defendants also move
to file a redacted version of Thomas Jordan’s expert report. (Doc. 544). In their Motion,
Defendants argue that limited portions should be redacted, because they reference trade secrets
from a March 25, 2015, MicroSeismic Report that this Court has previously refused to declassify.
(Doc. 544 at 1–2; see also Doc. 430). Defendants further assert that this expert report contains
information concerning Defendants’ “internal quality control processes developed through many
years of application and refinement, business strategies, and potential weaknesses.” (Doc. 544 at
1). The Court addresses each Motion in turn.
First, in their Motion to redact the employee severance agreement, Defendants state that
publicizing Defendants’ salary and compensation structure could place Defendants at a
competitive disadvantage and harm a former employee’s privacy rights. (Doc. 543 at 2); see also
Young v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 2:21-cv-00041, 2023 WL 5857001, at *6 (M.D.
Tenn. Mar. 13, 2023) (citing cases where courts agree that employee compensation may meet the
requirements to seal). The Court finds that there is not a countervailing public interest in accessing
this information, and the information to be redacted is also not relevant to Defendants’ underlying
Motion to Disqualify Counsel. (Doc. 537); see NetJets Ass’n of Shared Aircraft Pilots v. NetJets,
Inc., 2:14-cv-2487, 2016 WL 5349793, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 23, 2016). More still, the proposed
redactions to the employee severance agreement are very narrow. Defendants seek only to redact
the dollar amount of two lump sum payments and a brief list of target grant amounts. (See Doc.
543 at 2). Because Defendants raise a compelling interest in redacting this information that
outweighs any countervailing public interest, and because the request is narrowly tailored,
Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
Next, Defendants seek to redact less than three pages of Thomas Jordan’s expert report,
because these portions “reference trade secrets” from a MicroSeismic Report. (Doc. 544 at 2). As
previously discussed by the Court, this report contains technical data and analysis that “has been
kept confidential” and is not “readily accessible to the public.” (Doc. 430 at 23). As such, there
is a compelling interest in sealing information from the 2015 MicroSeismic Report. (Id.).
Moreover, the Court has previously stated that “no countervailing public interest weighs against
sealing” the report. (Id. at 23–24). And Defendants have now narrowly tailored their request to
redacting only the portions of the expert’s report where information from the 2015 MicroSeismic
Report is discussed. (See Doc. 544 at 2). After reviewing the proposed redactions in camera, the
Court agrees with Defendants that these portions contain the type of information that warrants
sealing. As such, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED (Docs. 543, 544).
Defendants are ORDERED to file redacted versions of the employee severance agreement and
Thomas Jordan’s expert report within seven (7) days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 11, 2023 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE