The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 2:22-cv-861
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
ANCESTRY.COM LLC, et al.,
Defendants,
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Seal. (Doc. 67). The Motion is
GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Elsewhere, the Court has summarized the events giving rise to this action. (See Docs. 30,
41). Relevant here, Defendants recently filed a motion to seal certain documents, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part. (Docs. 57, 59). The Court denied without prejudice Defendants’
motion to seal the entirety of Todd Godfrey’s deposition and found that the request was not
narrowly tailored. (Doc. 59 at 6). And the Court directed Plaintiff to file two documents under
seal temporarily: an expert report (“the Naaman Report”) and his motion for class certification.
(See id. at 9–10; see also Docs. 60, 60-1). The Court ordered Defendants to file a supplemental
brief to support their contention that these documents should remain sealed. (Doc. 59 at 10).
Defendants have filed their supplemental motion to seal the deposition, the Naaman Report, and
Plaintiff’s motion, (Doc. 67), and the Court addresses each request in turn.
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).
“[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).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek to redact portions of Todd Godfrey’s deposition, the Naaman Report, and
Plaintiffs motion for class certification. (Doc. 67). To overcome the “strong presumption in favor
of openness,” 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). And the
parties seeking to seal documents must demonstrate “document-by-document, line-by-line” why
they meet their burden to seal. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308. The Court’s obligation to explain its
reasoning for sealing records “is independent of whether anyone objects to it.” Id. at 306 (citing
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176).
Trade secrets are a “recognized exception to the right of public access to judicial records,”
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 710 F.2d at 1180, and the existence of a trade secret satisfies
the first “compelling interest” element in Shane Group. See Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 638. A
trade secret in Ohio is “information” that “derives independent economic value . . . from not being
generally known to . . . other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use”
and that a party expends reasonable efforts to keep secret. Handel’s Enterprises, Inc. v.
Schulenberg, 765 F. App’x 117, 122 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ohio Rev. Code § 1333.61(D)). In
Ohio, six non-dispositive factors are used to determine the existence of a trade secret:
(1) The extent to which the information is known outside the business; (2) the extent
to which it is known to those inside the business ...; (3) the precautions taken by the
holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the savings
effected and the value to the holder in having the information as against
competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended in obtaining and
developing the information; and (6) the amount of time and expense it would take
for others to acquire and duplicate the information.
Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 638 (quoting Heartland Home Fin., Inc. v. Allied Home Mortg. Capital
Corp., 258 F. App’x 860, 861–62 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted)).
After reviewing Defendants’ Motion and the documents in camera, the Court finds that
Defendants’ Motion should be GRANTED.
A. Deposition of Todd Godfrey
Defendants seek to redact portions of the deposition of Todd Godfrey. (Doc. 67 at 5–7).
Defendants argue that portions of the deposition transcript contain sensitive business and
marketing information, revenue and expenses, pricing and market analyses, and trade secrets
concerning the internal workings of ancestry.com. (Id.). Additionally, Defendants say that
disclosure “would harm Ancestry’s competitive standing” by allowing competitors to develop
strategies to market their services based on the information contained in the transcript. (Id. at 6;
Doc. 67-1 at 2).
After reviewing the proposed redactions in camera, the Court agrees that the transcript
contains information that warrants sealing. The transcript details Defendants’ business practices,
including the success of some products and whether Defendants profited in certain years. The
proposed redactions also include discussions about the capabilities of Defendants’ website, along
with marketing strategies and content acquisition methods. As such, the Court agrees with
Defendants that they have a compelling interest in the non-disclosure of this information. Proctor
& Gamble Co. v. Ranir, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-185, 2017 WL 3537195, at *3–4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17,
2017) (granting a motion to seal information related to “sales and marketing data, strategic
business plans. . . confidential marketing strategies and business plans” and “financial data”).
Furthermore, the public has little interest in this technical business information, and these limited
redactions will not prevent the public from understanding the facts underlying this case. See
NorCal Tea Party Patriots v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:13-cv-341, 2022 WL 1316267, at *7
(S.D. Ohio May 3, 2022) (“Any public interest in this filing could largely be satisfied by a review
of the publicly available materials, regardless of access to [two depositions].”). Finally, the
redactions are narrowly tailored. Indeed, Defendants only seek to redact select pages and
paragraphs of an over 200-page deposition. As such, Defendants have met their burden, and their
Motion as it relates to Todd Godfrey’s deposition is GRANTED.
B. The Naaman Report
Next, Defendants seek to redact portions of Michael Naaman’s expert report, filed in
support of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (Doc. 67 at 7–9). Defendants say this report
contains information on subscriber numbers and their content acquisition strategies that would
“harm [Defendants’] competitive standing” if disclosed to the public. (Id. at 9). Again, the Court
agrees that these limited portions of the report warrant redaction.
After in camera review, the Court finds that these parts of the report do contain subscriber
and content acquisition information that Defendants do not typically reveal to the public or to their
competitors. See Lucid Health, Inc. v. Premier Imaging Ventures, LLC, 2:20-cv-1055, 221 WL
128956, at *2 (granting a motion to seal portions of an expert report because they disclosed
information “that would provide competitors with an inside look at Defendant’s business strategies
and potential customers”). And the public’s interest in accessing this information does not
outweigh Defendants’ compelling interest in non-disclosure. Even with the proposed redactions,
the public would still have access to the expert’s conclusions, including the potential size of the
class and his description of damages calculations. Finally, the request is narrowly tailored, as
Defendants seek to redact individual sentences and not the entire report. Accordingly, Defendants’
request to redact these documents is GRANTED.
C. Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification
Lastly, Defendants ask to redact portions of Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (See
Doc. 67 at 9–11; Doc. 60 (Plaintiff’s motion)). More specifically, they seek to redact individual
sentences on four pages of Plaintiff’s motion, because they contain “detailed information” about
Defendants’ licensing agreements, their marketing strategies and practices, and other internal
business processes. (Doc. 67 at 11). Defendants say “irreparable harm” could occur if this
information is disclosed, because their competitors would have access to confidential “information
about Ancestry’s capabilities, its rationale for certain decisions, and its agreements with third
parties.” (Doc. 67-1 at 4–5). The Court has also reviewed these proposed redactions in camera.
The Court recognizes that a motion for class certification “is arguably the most important
filing in any putative class action.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306. Accordingly, “the standards for
denying public access to the record should be applied with particular strictness.” Id. at 305. Even
so, Defendants have met their burden. The sentences that Defendants seek to seal contain the type
of information that could hurt their competitive standing in the genealogy market if revealed. See
Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 10-cv-14360, 2018 WL 1811471, at *5 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 17, 2018) (granting a motion to redact portions of a motion for class certification where
it contained trade secrets and confidential business information). For example, some sentences
contain information on how Defendants acquire content, while other sentences contain details on
Defendants’ marketing practices. So, because these portions contain technical business
information and trade secrets, the public’s interest in accessing them does not outweigh
Defendants’ interest in sealing them. And as described above, Defendants’ request is narrowly
tailored, as they only seek to redact sentences from Plaintiff’s nearly forty-page motion.
Therefore, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 67) is GRANTED. Plaintiff
is ORDERED to file a revised motion and its exhibits consistent with this Order within seven (7)
days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification that is temporarily sealed
on the docket, (Doc. 60), may remain under seal, as Plaintiff is ordered to file a redacted version
consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 14, 2024 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE