HydraFacial LLC v. Aesthetic Management Partners, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

HYDRAFACIAL LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-02480-JPM-tmp

)

AESTHETIC MANAGEMENT )

PARTNERS, LLC and AESTHETIC )

MANAGEMENT PARTNERS INC., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Documents, filed June 13, 2025. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff

seeks to seal:

• Exhibits B1 and B6, (ECF Nos. 44-3, 44-4);

• portions of the Declaration of Karl Leinsing in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (the “Leinsing Declaration”), (ECF No. 44-1);

• portions of the Declaration of Vipul Savsani in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction (the “Savsani Declaration”), (ECF No. 44-2); and

• portions of HydraFacial’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Preliminary

Injunction which directly quote the Exhibits, (ECF No. 42-1).

(Id. at PageID 1108–09.)

There is “a ‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp.,

Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (Brown &

Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179). Plaintiff, as the party seeking to seal court records, bears the

heavy burden of overcoming that “strong presumption.” Id. To meet this burden, Plaintiff must

show “(1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interests in sealing outweigh

the public’s right of access; and (3) that the proposed seal is narrowly-tailored.” Durbin v. C&L

Tiling Inc., No. 3:18-cv-334-RGJ, 2019 WL 4615409, at *14 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 23, 2019) (citing

Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593-94 (6th Cir. 2016)).

Here, Plaintiff has met its burden. Each document Plaintiff seeks to seal contains

confidential and proprietary materials which warrant sealing. Exhibit B1 is a spreadsheet which

“includes confidential sales and financial information dating from 2005 to 2024 regarding the

commercial success of various HydraFacial products.” (ECF No. 43 at PageID 1109; ECF No.

44-3.) “Exhibit B6 consists of excerpts from the confidential design history file for the

HydraFacial Tower containing information on, inter alia, the manufacture, bill of materials, and

risks associated with the design of the HydraFacial Tower.” (ECF No. 43 at PageID 1109; ECF

No. 44-4.) Because both Exhibits B1 and B6 consist of confidential financial information and

design documentation which would cause significant harm if disclosed, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s request to seal entirely both Exhibit B1 and Exhibit B6. See Total Quality Logistics,

LLC v. Riffe, No. 1:19-cv-23, 2020 WL 5849408, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020) (“filing

under seal is justified because the documents at issue contain confidential business information

that, if disclosed on the public docket, would give a significant advantage to competitors of the

parties in this action”).

Regarding the Leinsing Declaration and Savsani Declaration (collectively, the

“Declarations”), and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Preliminary

Injunction, Plaintiff seeks to redact only the portions concerning Exhibits B1 and B6. (Id. at

PageID 1110.) For the same reasons given above, and because Plaintiff seeks the narrower

course of redaction rather than wholesale sealing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to

redact the Leinsing Declaration, Savsani Declaration, and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support.

Because Plaintiff has overcome the “‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to

court records,” its Motion is GRANTED. See Shane, 825 F.3d at 305. Exhibits B1 and B6,

filed as “Under Seal” with Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, are to remain under

seal. (See ECF Nos. 44-3, 44-4.) The Leinsing Declaration, Savsani Declaration, and Plaintiff’s

Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, each filed with proposed

redactions with Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, will remain as redacted. (See ECF

Nos. 42-1, 42-2, 42-3, 42-4, 42-5, 42-6, 42-23.)

SO ORDERED this the 17th day of June, 2025.

/s/ Jon P. McC alla

JON P. McCALLA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE