# Veritas Independent Partners, LLC v. The Ohio National Life Insurance Company

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · March 7, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384178

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** March 7, 2024
- **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/10384178

## Opinion text

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

VERITAS INDEPENDENT :
PARTNERS, LLC, et al., :
: Case No. 1:18-cv-769
Plaintiffs, :
: Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
vs. :
:
THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE
:
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff Veritas
Independent Partners, LLC (“Veritas”) and Avantax Investment Services, Inc. (“Avantax”)
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and the responses filed by Defendants The Ohio National Life
Insurance Company, Ohio National Life Assurance Company, Ohio National Equities, Inc.,
and Ohio National Financial Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”): (1) Rule 56(d)
motion to conduct additional discovery (Doc. 98) (the “Rule 56(d) Motion”), (2) motion for
leave to file a response in opposition to Defendants’ second motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 136) (the “Opposition Motion”), (3) unopposed motion for leave to file its response
under seal (Doc. 142) (the “Seal Motion”), and (4) motion for leave to file supplemental
documentation and memorandum under seal (Doc. 146) (the “Supplemental Motion”).
Also before the Court is Defendants’ request for an order to hold the motion for class
certification in abeyance pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 89) (the “Abeyance Motion”) and Plaintiffs’ response thereto. (Doc. 99).
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Opposition Motion (Doc. 136), Plaintiffs’
Seal Motion (Doc. 142), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion (Doc. 146) and Defendants’
Abeyance Motion (Doc. 89) are hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion (Doc.
98) is DENIED AS MOOT.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are independent broker dealers that provide financial services and products
to individual retail customers. One such product they provide includes individual variable
annuities, created by third parties and sold to Plaintiffs, who then sell the annuities to their
retail customers. In the dispute in this proceeding, Plaintiffs entered into “selling agreements”
with Defendants for the sale of “ONcore Variable Annuities.” Compl., Doc. 39, PageID 539.
The terms of the selling agreements provided that Plaintiffs would receive trail commissions—
a form of compensation paid on a periodic basis based on the value of the annuity—in
exchange for the sale of annuities to Plaintiffs’ retail customers. Id.

However, in September 2018, Defendants sent letters to Veritas and Avantax notifying
them that their selling agreements would be terminated in December of that year and that “all
individual annuity trail compensation under the selling agreement[s] [would] cease” at the
time of termination. Id. at PageID 542. Veritas initiated this breach of contract action in
November 2018 in direct response to Defendants’ decision to cease trail commissions.
Avantax joined as a plaintiff to the case in December 2019. Compl., Doc. 39.
The primary issue arising out of this action is one of contract interpretation. Plaintiffs
argue that the following provision (the “Survival Provision”) means that Defendants’
obligation to pay trail commissions survived termination of the selling agreements:

The terms of compensation shall survive this Agreement unless
the Agreement is terminated for cause by ONL [Defendants],
provided that BD [Veritas and Avantax] remains a broker-dealer
in good standing with the FINRA and other state and federal
regulatory agencies and that BD remains the broker-dealer of
record for the account.

Compl., Doc. 39-1, PageID 553; Doc. 39-2, PageID 561.

Defendants maintain, however, that a different provision (the “In Force Provision”),
located in the schedule of commissions attached to the selling agreements, says the opposite:
Trail commissions will continue to be paid to broker dealer of
record while the Selling Agreement remains in force and will be
paid on a particular contract until the contract is surrendered or
annuitized.

Compl., Doc. 39-3, PageID 567. To advance this argument on summary judgment,
Defendants point to Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Cetera Advisor Networks, LLC (Oppenheimer), No.
1:19-cv-47, 2021 WL 2819838 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2021) (Cole, J.), a case that previously
construed the identical contractual provisions at issue in this matter. Specifically, Defendants
contend that the reasoning set forth under Oppenheimer, “coupled with the admissions secured
during Named Plaintiffs’ depositions, compels the conclusion that [Defendants] had no
obligation to pay trail commissions [] after termination.” Doc. 88, PageID 4102.
Rather than responding to Defendants’ summary judgment motion on the merits,
Plaintiffs initially sought additional discovery from Defendants under Rule 56(d). According
to Plaintiffs, the information that Defendants provided previously lacked sufficient detail and
responsiveness for them to be able to adequately oppose Defendants’ summary judgment
motion. Doc. 98. Having recently obtained additional discovery, Plaintiffs now ask this Court
for leave to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and for permission to file
certain accompanying exhibits and documentation under seal. See Docs. 135, 142, 146.
Separately, Defendants are also asking this Court to hold Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification in abeyance pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment. Doc. 89.
II. PENDING MOTIONS
a. Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) and Opposition Motions

The Court will first address Plaintiffs’ motions asking for relief under Rule 56(d) and
for leave to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the procedure for when a
party asserts that additional discovery is necessary before it can respond to a motion for
summary judgment:
When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant
shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court
may:

(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;

(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or

(3) issue any other appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Plaintiffs originally sought relief under Rule 56(d) on the basis that they required
additional discovery in order to adequately oppose Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs contend, however, that subsequent to filing that motion, Defendants
“made numerous supplemental productions.” Doc. 136, PageID 5516. Since that time,
Plaintiffs have been able to take four additional depositions, including that of Diane White, a
custodian from whom Plaintiffs sought electronically stored information (i.e., ESI). Id. at
PageID 5517. Based on the evidence discovered, Plaintiffs argue that it “is clear that ONL is
not entitled to summary judgment,” and now seek leave to formally respond to Defendants’
motion for summary judgment. Defendants have no opposition to proceeding in this way.
Defendants assert, however, that if the Court were to grant the Opposition Motion, the Court
should then deny the Rule 56(d) Motion1 and hold class certification in abeyance pending
resolution of summary judgment.

Under these circumstances, good cause now exists that warrants Plaintiffs having an
opportunity to file their response to summary judgment. Accordingly, the Opposition Motion
is GRANTED. Plaintiffs concede that they now possess facts obtained through discovery
essential to mounting their opposition to summary judgment—negating the need for relief
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). As such, the Rule 56(d) Motion has been rendered moot. See
Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 833 (10th Cir. 1986) (“The
protection afforded by [Rule 56(d)] is an alternative to a response in opposition to summary
judgment.”) (citing 10A Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2740

(1983)). For that reason, the Rule 56(d) Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
b. Plaintiffs’ Seal and Supplemental Motions
The Court now turns to Plaintiffs’ requests to file certain documents under seal. A
party seeking to seal court records bears the heavy burden of overcoming the “strong
presumption in favor of openness” as to court records. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d
1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). This presumption arises because “[t]he public has a strong interest
in obtaining the information contained in the court record…[including] an interest in
ascertaining what evidence and records” a court relies upon in making its decision. Lipman v.

1 Plaintiffs decline to withdraw the Rule 56(d) Motion.
Budish, 974 F.3d 726, 753 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1180–81).
Indeed, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983).
In order to meet its substantial burden, the party seeking to seal court records “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 America, Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 638 (6th Cir. 2019).
The moving party must therefore “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of
secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06 (quoting Baxter
Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). Likewise, when a district court
elects to seal court records, it must set forth specific findings and conclusions that justify
nondisclosure to the public. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176.
1. The Seal Motion

Plaintiffs seek to file twenty-eight (28) exhibits under seal on the basis that the exhibits
contain information that Defendants have “marked as confidential, continue[] to contend is
confidential, and ha[ve] asked be filed under seal.” Doc. 142, PageID 5535. Defendants
reported that the information qualifies as “private/confidential material relating to non-party
BDs and individuals [and includes] confidential internal business and strategy-related
materials and communications, and other confidential business information not shared with
competitors or the public—i.e., information and documents of the sort Judge Cole previously
found to be confidential and appropriately filed under seal in various orders.”2 Id. at 5537.

2 This case was reassigned to the undersigned on December 21, 2022. While previously assigned this case, District
Judge Douglas R. Cole ordered that certain documents be filed in this case under seal, see Doc. 79, including: (1)
Plaintiffs submitted the following exhibits for in camera review:
No. Description/Bates No. Confidential Excerpts/Exhibits
3 Excerpts from December 19, 2019 45:17–46:21, 53:3–23, 151:19–152:12
Deposition of Thomas Barefield in Kestra
Investment Servs., LLC v. The Ohio Nat’l Life
Ins. Co., No. 1:19-cv-00687-JRN (W.D.
Tex.)
4 Excerpts and select exhibits from May 24, 147:1–13, 159:11–160:14, 200:15–24,
2021 Deposition of Scott Shepherd Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 11,
Exhibit 14, Exhibit 21, Exhibit 22
6 Excerpts and select exhibits from August 16:3–24, 17:1–21:5, 27:1–28:17, 34:1–
17, 2023 Deposition of Scott Shepherd 11, 35:6–37:10, 52:16–53:14, 55:10–
59:2, 61:13–62:5, 64:11–65:23, 67:24–
68:6, 70:3–10, 83:6–12, 87:11–17,
117:12–118:9, 131:2–132:4, 133:20–
134:13, Exhibit 31, Exhibit 32, Exhibit
33, Exhibit 34, Exhibit 37, Exhibit 38,
Exhibit 39
9 ONLVeritas 018917–32
10 ONLVeritas 022771–86
11 ONLVeritas 019390–410
12 ON-Esearch 013907–09
13 E-ONL 653018
14 E-ONL 254158
15 E-ONL 299813–15
17 SAMPLE000135384
19 Excerpts and select exhibits from March 102:20–104:14, 190:1–18, 218:1–219:7,
17, 2023 Deposition of Scott Shepherd in 224:11–228:3, Exhibit 32, Exhibit 56,
UBS Fin. Servs. v. The Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Exhibit 109
Co., No. 2:18-cv-17191-MCA-ESK
(D.N.J.)
20 Exhibit 55 to February 27, 2023
Deposition of Michael DeWeirdt in UBS
Fin. Servs. v. The Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
No. 2:18-cv-17191-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.)
21 Excerpts and select exhibits from August all excerpts and exhibits attached to
15, 2023 Deposition of Tom DeGaetano Misny Decl.
22 E-ONL 145627

the company names found on page 147, lines 11–12 of the deposition transcript of Ohio National’s Civil Rule
30(b)(6) representative (“30(b)(6) Deposition”); (2) the company name found on page 160, line 7 of the 30(b)(6)
Deposition; (3) the document Bates-stamped ON-ESearch 21383 in its entirety; (4) the document Bates-stamped
ON-ESearch 102156 in its entirety; and (5) Exhibit 14 to the 30(b)(6) Deposition in its entirety. To the extent that
Plaintiffs seek leave to file Exhibit 14 to the 30(b)(6) Deposition under seal, that request is granted for the reasons
set forth by Judge Cole. See Doc. 79, PageID 2361–62.
23 Excerpts and select exhibits from August all excerpts and exhibits attached to
10, 2023 Deposition of Sheryl Ridgley Misny Decl.
24 ONLVeritas 021661
25 E-ONL 159739
26 E-ONL 187960
27 E-ONL 193972
28 ONLVeritas 054926
29 Excerpts from September 8, 2023 all excerpts attached to Misny Decl.
Deposition of Diane White
30 ON-ESearch 104390
31 ONLVeritas 014877
32 E-ONL 479384
33 ONLVeritas 036425–31
34 E-ONL 530531
35 ON-Epriv 010125–26

See Doc. 142, PageID 5536–37.

The Court has conducted a thorough in-camera review of these exhibits and finds that
these records contain either (or in some circumstances, both): (1) information relating to
named companies or other third parties that are neither parties nor putative parties in this
action, and/or (2) information relating to Defendants’ or other third parties’ confidential
business information such as strategy discussions, business practices, or decision-making.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met the stringent burden of demonstrating that
these records should be filed under seal and therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Seal Motion.
Given the volume of the records submitted, the similar nature of the content contained in
them, and the Court’s previous order (Doc. 79), this Court will address the exhibits based on
the categories articulated above.
As noted, Judge Cole previously determined that Defendants have a compelling
interest in protecting the privacy interests of third parties that are neither parties nor putative
parties in this case. Doc. 79, Page ID 2259 (citing Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 308 (“the privacy
interests of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation”)).
Finding that these records should be sealed, Judge Cole explained that the request to seal such
records was narrowly tailored, and that “the names of these third parties will not be relevant
to the Court’s decision in this matter, and thus sealing the names will not hinder the public’s
ability to understand the Court’s decision.” Id. at PageID 2259–60.

The same is true for certain of the records submitted and reviewed by this Court related
to the dispute in the case sub judice. To protect the privacy interests of third parties, this Court
therefore orders the following items to be filed under seal:
• Exhibit No. 3: Excerpts from December 19, 2019 Deposition of Thomas
Barefield in Kestra Investment Servs., LLC v. The Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:19-
cv-00687-JRN (W.D. Tex.), including 45:17–46:21, 53:3–23, 151:19–152:12

• Exhibit No. 4: Excerpts and select exhibits from May 24, 2021 Deposition of
Scott Shepherd, including 147:1–13, 159:11–160:14, Exhibit 21, Exhibit 22

• Exhibit No. 6: Excerpts and select exhibits from August 17, 2023 Deposition
of Scott Shepherd, including 17:1–21:5, Exhibit 38, Exhibit 39

• Exhibit No. 9: ONLVeritas 018917–32

• Exhibit No. 10: ONLVeritas 022771–86

• Exhibit No. 11: ONLVeritas 019390–410

• Exhibit No. 19: Excerpts and select exhibits from March 17, 2023 Deposition
of Scott Shepherd in UBS Fin. Servs. v. The Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 2:18-cv-
17191-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), including Exhibit 32

• Exhibit No. 21: Excerpts and select exhibits from August 15, 2023 Deposition
of Tom DeGaetano, including all excerpts and exhibits attached to Misny Decl.

• Exhibit No. 22: E-ONL 145627

• Exhibit No. 24: ONLVeritas 021661

• Exhibit No. 28: ONLVeritas 054926

• Exhibit No. 31: ON-ESearch 104390
• Exhibit No. 32: ONLVeritas 014877

• Exhibit No. 33: E-ONL 479384

• Exhibit No. 34: ONLVeritas 036425–31

• Exhibit No. 35: E-ONL 530531

• Exhibit No. 36: ON-Epriv 010125–26
The remainder of the records implicate Defendants’ confidential business strategies
and/or private business information of other parties. This Court adopts Judge Cole’s previous
determination that there is a compelling interest in sealing documents that contain
Defendants’ sensitive business information and similar information belonging to other
parties. Doc. 79, PageID 2360 (“Particularly in ‘highly competitive’ industries—such as the
industry at issue in this matter—the ‘protecti[on of] parties’ confidential business practices’
can be a compelling reason to grant a seal.”) (quoting Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc. v. Longbow Enters.,
LLC, No. 1:21-cv-74, 2021 WL 4952705, at *2 (S.D. Ohio, Apr. 1, 2021)). Like the documents
that this Court previously ordered sealed in this proceeding, the documents under
consideration here also contain “highly detailed and specific” information that would be
prejudicial to Defendants and other entities should it be disclosed. Id. at PageID 2361.
The request to seal these records is no greater than required and this Court does not
believe that the information will be necessary to understand or appreciate the substance of its
decision in this matter. See, e.g., London Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-696, 2019
WL 4110516, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019) (“the public will not need to view the parties’
highly confidential business information to understand the events giving rise to this dispute,
or the arguments made in that motion.”). Thus, to protect Defendants and other non-party
entities’ confidential and sensitive business information, this Court directs that each of the
items that follow likewise be filed under seal:
• Exhibit No. 4: Excerpts and select exhibits from May 24, 2021 Deposition of
Scott Shepherd, including: 200:15–24, Exhibit 2, Exhibit 3, Exhibit 11

• Exhibit No. 6: Excerpts and select exhibits from August 17, 2023 Deposition
of Scott Shepherd, including: 16:3–24, 27:1–28:17, 34:1–11, 35:6–37:10, 52:16–
53:14, 55:10–59:2, 61:13–62:5, 64:11–65:23, 67:24–68:6, 70:3–10, 83:6–12,
87:11–17, 117:12–118:9, 131:2–132:4, 133:20–134:13, Exhibit 31, Exhibit 32,
Exhibit 33, Exhibit 34, Exhibit 37

• Exhibit No. 12: ON-Esearch 013907–09

• Exhibit No. 13: E-ONL 653018

• Exhibit No. 14: E-ONL 254158

• Exhibit No. 15: E-ONL 299813–15

• Exhibit No. 17: SAMPLE000135384

• Exhibit No. 19: Excerpts and select exhibits from March 17, 2023 Deposition
of Scott Shepherd in UBS Fin. Servs. v. The Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 2:18-cv-
17191-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), including 102:20–104:14, 190:1–18, 218:1–219:7,
224:11–228:3, Exhibit 56, Exhibit 109

• Exhibit No. 20: Exhibit 55 to February 27, 2023 Deposition of Michael
DeWeirdt in UBS Fin. Servs. v. The Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 2:18-cv-17191-
MCA-ESK (D.N.J.)

• Exhibit No. 21: Excerpts and select exhibits from August 15, 2023 Deposition
of Tom DeGaetano, including all excerpts and exhibits attached to Misny Decl.

• Exhibit No. 23: Excerpts and select exhibits from August 10, 2023 Deposition
of Sheryl Ridgley, including all excerpts and exhibits attached to Misny Decl.

• Exhibit No. 25: E-ONL 159739

• Exhibit No. 26: E-ONL 187960

• Exhibit No. 27: E-ONL 193972
• Exhibit No. 29: Excerpts from September 8, 2023 Deposition of Diane White,
including all excerpts attached to Misny Decl.

2. The Supplemental Motion

Plaintiffs also seek to file under seal supplemental documentation that Defendants
produced after Plaintiffs filed the Seal Motion and Opposition Motion for leave to respond to
summary judgment. Defendants’ production included “historical manuals and training
documents governing the operation of its compensation for broker-dealers,” including one
manual that Defendants marked as confidential. Doc. 146, PageID 5550. Defendants agree
that the manual should be filed under seal, arguing that “the detailed and internal systems-
related documentation [] contains confidential and proprietary information [] that is not
shared with the public, let alone competitors,” and “constitute[s] precisely the type of
confidential information that Judge Cole previously deemed to warrant sealing in this case.”
Doc. 147, PageID 5554–55 (emphasis in original). Having reviewed the manual in camera, the
Court agrees that this too should be filed under seal. To hold otherwise would risk disclosure
of Defendants’ sensitive business information, see Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 2021 WL 4952705, at
*2, and severely prejudice Defendants. Moreover, the Court finds that the request to seal this
document is no broader than necessary.
c. Defendants’ Abeyance Motion
The last motion the Court will address relates to Defendants’ request that the Court
hold Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in abeyance pending resolution of Defendants’
summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs oppose this motion primarily on efficiency grounds.
While the district court must determine whether to certify a class action at “an early
practicable time,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c), the Sixth Circuit has “consistently held that a
district court is not required to rule on a motion for class certification before ruling on the
merits of the case.” Miami Univ. Wrestling Club v. Miami Univ., 302 F.3d 608, 616 (6th Cir.
2002) (citing Sprague v. Gen. Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388, 397 (6th Cir. 1988); Jibson v. Michigan
Educ. Ass’n-NEA, 30 F.3d 723, 734 (6th Cir. 1994)). Although “the relative merits of the
underlying dispute are to have no impact upon the determination of the propriety of the class

action,” the Court finds that the most efficient course is to address summary judgment and
hold Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in abeyance. Marx v. Centran Corp., 747 F.2d
1536, 1552 (6th Cir. 1984). The Court’s decision today in no way forecasts how it perceives
the merits of this case. The Court specifically declines to go so far as Defendants have in
briefing by saying that this decision is proper based on Plaintiffs’ “vulnerability” to summary
judgment. It remains to be seen; however, Plaintiffs may very well prevail against Defendants’
motion for summary judgment when all briefing concludes and the Court has had an
opportunity to fully consider the parties’ arguments and the law.
Given the Court’s rulings on the pending motions and the current procedural posture

of the case, additional discovery predicated on Rule 56(d) is unnecessary. With the additional
discovery recently supplied by Defendants, Plaintiffs should now be well positioned to
respond to summary judgment. The Court therefore anticipates that summary judgment will
be fully briefed in a matter of weeks. Focusing on summary judgment at this juncture “seems
likely to protect both the parties and the court from needless and costly further litigation.”
Thompson v. County of Medina, 29 F.3d 238, 241 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Wright v. Shock, 742
F.2d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 1984)). Based upon this determination, class certification will be held
in abeyance pending resolution of summary judgment.
I. CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed, Plaintiffs’ Opposition Motion (Doc. 136), Plaintiffs’ Seal
Motion (Doc. 142), Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion (Doc. 146) and Defendants’ Abeyance
Motion (Doc. 89) are hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) Motion (Doc. 98) is
DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiffs shall file their unredacted response to Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, supplemental memorandum, and accompanying exhibits under seal
within twenty-one days after entry of this Order. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). At that time,
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a redacted response, supplemental memorandum, and
accompanying exhibits such that the public can view the non-confidential portions in their
entirety. See Wiggins v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:19-cv-3223, 2020 WL 7056479, at *2 (S.D.
Ohio Dec. 2, 2020) (finding that a motion to seal was “narrowly tailored” because the party
sought “not to seal these exhibits in their entirety, but rather, to file redacted versions on the
public docket.”). Defendants may file a reply within fourteen days after the date of service of
Plaintiffs’ response and supplemental memorandum.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 7, 2024 eae Oka
efféry) P AAopkins
United States District Judge

14

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384178. Public record. Not legal advice.