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’ unopposed Motion to Seal. (Doc. 95). The
Court has addressed many similar motions in this case. (See, e.g., Docs. 59, 68, 82, 87). Once
again, Defendants seek to file redacted versions of several exhibits on the public docket, arguing
that these materials “contain highly confidential and sensitive information . . . about Ancestry’s
subscriber and content acquisition” methods. (See Doc. 95 at 3). For the following reasons, the
Motion is 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 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.’” Id. (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.” Id. (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). In sum, a party seeking a seal must show “(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).
II. DISCUSSION
Specifically, Defendants seek to redact three exhibits: the transcript of the May 8, 2024,
deposition of Alan Salzberg; Ancestry’s June 6, 2023, Amended and Supplemental Responses and
Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories; and Ancestry’s July 21, 2023, Amended and
Supplemental Responses and Objections to ROGs 4 and 12. (Doc. 95 at 1). The Court reviewed
the proposed redactions in camera and addresses each in turn.
A. Deposition of Alan Salzberg
First, Defendants seek to redact numerical values from the deposition transcript. (Doc. 95
at 5–6). To summarize, Defendants say these redactions contain “confidential information
regarding the number of Ancestry subscribers. . . [and] content acquisition.” (Id. at 6). The Court
previously found Defendants have a compelling interest in the non-disclosure of similar
information, noting that disclosure could harm Defendants’ competitive standing in the genealogy
market. (See Doc. 68 at 5 (granting a motion to seal content acquisition information)). In addition,
the public has little interest in accessing this type of technical business information. London
Computer Sys., Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-696, 2019 WL 4110516, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
19, 2019) (“[T]he 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.”).
What’s more, the redactions Defendants seek are extremely narrow. Consequently, Defendants
have met their burden, and the Motion is GRANTED.
B. Ancestry’s June 6, 2023, Amended and Supplemental Responses and Objections to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Ancestry’s July 21, 2023, Amended and Supplemental
Responses and Objections to ROGs 4 and 12
Defendants also move to redact discovery responses they provided to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 95
at 6–9). Defendants say these materials contain content acquisition information, marketing
strategies, trade secrets about ancestry.com, and the rationale behind services offered by Ancestry.
(See id. at 7). Again, Defendants assert that disclosure of this information “would harm Ancestry’s
competitive standing.” (Id.). Upon review of these materials in camera, the Court agrees and
notes that it has granted Defendants’ request to redact these materials in the past. (See Doc. 59 at
4–5). Since that time, the compelling reasons for the redactions have not changed. (See id. (finding
that the discovery responses contain trade secrets)). More still, the public’s ability to understand
the nature of this litigation will not be impacted by these redactions. (Id.). And finally, Defendants
seek to redact only portions of these documents, and the Court finds their requests are narrowly
tailored. Therefore, the Motion is GRANTED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. 95) is GRANTED. The
parties may file the unredacted exhibits under seal with redacted versions on the public docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 20, 2024 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE