Garvey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

PAUL C. GARVEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:25-cv-00609

Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

MOUNTAIN LION OIL & GAS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Document Under Seal and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File

a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion are before the Court. (Docs. 61, 62). Defendants’

Motion (Doc. 62) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 61) is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is an oil well geologist who was hired by Defendant Lion Oil & Gas, LLC

(“MLOG”) to “procure oil and gas mineral leases for MLOG.” (Doc. 28 at ¶¶ 11, 15). Plaintiff

describes the business arrangement as follows. MLOG was tasked with finding properties where

it wanted to acquire mineral rights. (Id. at ¶ 10). Plaintiff then would contact landowners, who

hopefully would agree to sell their mineral rights. (Id. at ¶ 15). Next, MLOG would prepare the

contracts for Plaintiff to obtain the landowners’ signatures. (Id.). On the contracts, Defendant

Silverback Royalties, LLC (“Silverback”) would be listed as lessee (id.), and Defendant Tusk

Exploration II, LLC (“Tusk II”) would pay Plaintiff (id. at ¶ 17).

Plaintiff alleges that during the time of his contract with MLOG, and without notice,

MLOG prevented him from closing mineral lease transactions he previously procured. (Id. at

¶ 20). Plaintiff also claims he did not receive payment for the last two weeks of August 2023, or

for the month of September 2023, and that MLOG had law enforcement forcibly remove him from

his residence owned by “one or more of the Defendants.” (Id. at ¶¶ 18, 20). He also alleges MLOG

terminated his employment agreement without notice. (Id. at ¶ 20).

Plaintiff filed this action against MLOG, Silverback, Tusk II, SRO-22 (“SRO”), and two

individuals, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent concealment. (Id.

at 9–18). SRO subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it is not a party to the contract

between MLOG and Plaintiff. (Doc. 37-1).

To its motion to dismiss, SRO attached a copy of its “Consulting Agreement” between it

and MLOG. (Doc. 37-2). Plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 53), and moved for leave to file a

“Relationship Agreement” between Defendants SRO, MLOG, and Tusk II as an exhibit to his

response under seal. (Doc. 56). The Court denied that motion without prejudice, explaining that

Plaintiff did not meet the high burden to justify sealing. (Doc. 60). The Court gave Plaintiff seven

days to refile his Motion with the correct analysis. (Id.). Plaintiff refiled, and Defendants SRO,

MLOG, and Tusk II (collectively “Defendants”) filed a Motion for Leave to file a Memorandum

in Support. (Doc. 62). The Motions are ripe for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When considering a motion to seal, 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); see also id. (“Only the most compelling reasons

can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” (quotation omitted)).

“[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.” Id. 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). If there is a

compelling reason, “the party must then show why those reasons outweigh the public interest in

access to those records.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019)

(citing Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305).

The Court “has an obligation to keep its records open for public inspection [and] that

obligation is not conditioned upon the desires of the parties to the case.” Harrison v. Proctor &

Gamble Co., No. 1:15-CV-514, 2017 WL 11454396, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 11, 2017) (citing

Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 307). A court “that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific

findings and conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at

306 (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176). In sum, to overcome “the strong presumption

in favor of openness,” parties who move to seal documents must demonstrate: “(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, 767 F. App’x at

637.

III. DISCUSSION

The Court previously denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s first Motion to Seal because it

did not include the proper legal analysis. (Docs. 56, 60). In his revised Motion, Plaintiff claims

he is “not unwilling to do [the required legal analysis], but Plaintiff does not have sufficient

knowledge to present the necessary arguments.” (Doc. 61 at 2). Defendants subsequently filed a

Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum of Support of Plaintiff’s Motion. (Doc. 62). Their

Memorandum in Support includes an analysis of the three Shane Group factors as applied to the

Relationship Agreement. (Id.). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Leave

to File a Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion (id.) and evaluates their arguments in turn.

As directed, Plaintiff submitted a redacted and an unredacted version of the Relationship

Agreement to the Court for an in camera inspection. Upon review, the Court notes that the

Relationship Agreement contains proposed redactions for three categories of information: (1)

dollar amounts of Defendants’ funding commitments, (2) geographic areas covered by the

Relationship Agreement, and (3) personal contact information of Defendants’ representatives. In

considering the Shane Group factors, the Court finds justification for redacting some but not all of

this information.

First, Defendants argue they have a compelling interest in keeping the dollar amounts for

their funding commitments under seal. (Doc. 62-1 at 3). Citing competitive interests, Defendants

argue that disclosure of this information could “provide competitors with an unfair advantage or

be used against Defendants in negotiations related to similar future endeavors.” (Id.). While it

may be true that the price parties agree to pay under a contract can harm that party’s competitive

position in future negotiations, clear precedent dictates that this is not a compelling reason to redact

that information from the public eye. Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 134 F.4th 927, 932 (6th Cir.

2025) (holding that the “bald assertion” that disclosing information such as the price a party makes

under a contract “would harm a party’s competitive position” is not a compelling reason to seal)

(citation modified)). Defendants do not distinguish their argument from the holding in Grae, nor

does either party offer other support besides the “bald assertion” that revealing the information

could cause Defendants hypothetical competitive harm. Id.; (Doc. 62-1 at 3; Doc. 61 at 2). As a

result, Plaintiff’s Motion to place this financial information under seal is DENIED.

Second, Defendants argue they have a compelling interest in keeping geographic locations

in the Relationship Agreement under seal. (Id.). This time, the Court agrees. Unlike financial

information, parties have a “compelling competitive interest in sealing its sensitive business

information” such as internal “geography maps” and other “internal procedures.” See Duff v.

Centene Corp., No. 1:19-CV-750, 2022 WL 3151889, at *1–2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 8, 2022) (granting

motion to seal internal policy procedures such as “detailed charts illustrating provider coverage,

including how far members in any given country must travel to reach a particular type of care

provider.”). Similar to Duff, disclosure of the geographical information in the Relationship

Agreement reveals a detailed map, including exact locations of where Defendants intend to

purchase mineral leases. The Court agrees with Defendants that revealing this information would

“allow Defendants’ competitors to target the exact same areas Defendants continue to pursue,

which might not otherwise be known to them.” (Doc. 62-1 at 3). As such, Defendants present a

compelling reason for non-disclosure.

The Court also agrees with Defendants that the public’s interest in having this information

does not outweigh Defendants’ interest in keeping it private. (Id. at 4). The interest in sealing

records is not outweighed by public interest where such information is not relevant to the case at

hand. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (“the public has an interest in ascertaining what evidence

and records the District Court and this Court have relied upon in reaching our decisions”) (citation

modified). As Defendants assert, the geographic information contained in the Relationship

Agreement is not necessary for the public to understand their alleged wrongdoing or the Court’s

decision-making. (Id. at 4). Thus, the public interest does not outweigh Defendants’ compelling

interests to seal.

The redactions of geographic information also satisfy the third Shane Group prong, as the

proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. This means that “the seal itself is no broader than

necessary.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. This district has previously held that when parties “do

not seek to seal the contents of the documents at issue completely,” the sealing is no broader than

necessary to address its compelling interest. Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Riffe, No. 1:19-CV-

23, 2020 WL 5849408, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020) (finding narrow tailoring where the parties

“do not seek to seal the contents of the documents at issue completely” and where the parties “have

already filed redacted versions of the documents on the public docket.”). Here too, Plaintiff does

not seek to file the entire Relationship Agreement under seal. Instead, he seeks to file a version

that redacts the map and specific geographical locations to effectuate Defendants’ compelling

interest of concealing this information from competitors. The proposed redactions are “no broader

than necessary” to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to redact geographical information is

GRANTED.

Third, the Relationship Agreement contains proposed redactions of the personal contact

information of Defendants’ respective representatives. (Doc. 62-1 at 3). Defendants assert that

they have a compelling privacy interest in sealing this information and that the public does not

need the contact information of Defendant’s representatives to understand the claims in this case.

(Id.). The Court agrees. Privacy interests are compelling reasons to redact an individual’s personal

contact information, and the public has no outweighing interest in revealing this information,

especially where it bears no relevance to the present case. See United States v. EES Coke Battery,

LLC, No. 22-11191, 2025 WL 1621296, at *22 (E.D. Mich. June 9, 2025) (“Such sensitive and

privileged information will not be given to the public.”), objections overruled, No. 22-11191, 2025

WL 1983451 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2025). And the Court finds these proposed redactions are

narrowly tailored. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to redact this information is GRANTED.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum in Support (Doc. 62) is GRANTED,

and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 61) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to file the Relationship Agreement under seal within seven (7) days.

Plaintiff is ORDERED also file a redacted version of the exhibit consistent with this Order to the

public docket by the same date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 30, 2025 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE