# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · November 13, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11202780

## Case

- **Full name:** Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** November 13, 2025
- **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/11202780

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing an interest in sealing “confidential information that would otherwise allow competitors an inside look at a company’s business strategies”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

WEEKEND WARRIOR CLOTHING,
LLC,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:23-cv-752

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et
al.,

Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Weekend Warrior Clothing, LLC, and Defendants Amazon.com
Services, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc., (collectively, Amazon) seek this Court’s
permission to file various documents under seal. (Mot. to Seal, Doc. 53). Specifically,
Weekend Warrior seeks leave to file under seal various documents and spreadsheets
Amazon produced in discovery and designated as confidential (the documents).1 (Id.
at #2098–99). It says it intends to rely on those documents to support its upcoming
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.). Since then, Defendant Amazon also has filed a
second Unopposed Motion to Seal (Doc. 69). It seeks leave to file under seal portions

1 Here is the complete list: (1) Bundy Deposition Transcript, (2) Bundy Deposition Exhibit 4, (3) Bundy
Deposition Exhibits 11–14, (4) Boehm Deposition Transcript, (5) Boehm Deposition Exhibits 17–22,
(6) Danala Deposition transcript, (7) Kraft Deposition transcript, (8) Kraft Deposition Exhibit 26,
(9) Kraft Deposition Exhibits 28–29, (10) Snyder Deposition Transcript, (11) Handson Expert Report,
(12) Hanson Deposition Transcript, (13) LaMagna Deposition Transcript, (14) LaMagna Deposition
Exhibit 50, (15) LaMagna Deposition Exhibit 53, (16) LaMagna Deposition Exhibit 55, (17) Bania
Deposition Exhibit 57, (18) 2025-06-11 (AEO) Amended Accused ASINs with Sales Provided by
Amazon, (19) 2025-06-11 (AEO) WW’s June 11, 2025 Amended Response to Rog 3, (20) 2025-06-11
(Partial AEO) WW’s June 11, 2025 Further Amended Disclosures, (21) AMZ-WWC-00014178,
(22) AMZ-WWC-00029208, (23) AMZ-WWC-00030216, (24) AMZ-WWC-00030218, (25) AMZ-WWC-
00030221, (26) AMZ-WWC-00043194–98, (27) AMZ-WWC-00043199. (Doc. 53, #2099).
of its Memorandum in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, its Statement
of Proposed Undisputed Facts, the Bundy Declaration, and the Kraft Declaration. (Id.
at #6931). Amazon seeks to redact the segments of these documents that refer to the

various confidential documents in the first Motion to Seal. (Id. at #6931–32). For the
reasons below, the Court GRANTS both Unopposed Motions to Seal (Docs. 53, 69).2
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A district court’s decision to seal court records is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Beauchamp v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 658 F. App’x 202, 207 (6th
Cir. 2016) (citing Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299,

306 (6th Cir. 2016)). But when it comes to sealing, that “decision is not accorded the
deference that standard normally brings.” Id. So to avoid abusing its discretion, a
district court must “set forth specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify
nondisclosure to the public.’” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (quoting Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)).
A district court has an independent obligation, regardless of the parties’

agreement, to determine whether sealing is warranted. See Proctor (sic) & Gamble
Co. v. Ranir, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-185, 2017 WL 3537195, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017)
(citing Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th
Cir. 2016)) (“A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the seal
exists even if the parties agree the filings should be sealed, because litigants cannot

2 The parties also mention that Amazon intends to cite excerpts of Daniel Whelan’s deposition that
Weekend Warrior had previously designated confidential. (Doc. 53, #2098). Because Weekend Warrior
states that it has withdrawn those confidentiality designations to allow Amazon to file those excerpts
publicly, the Court does not address that document. (Id.).
waive the public’s First Amendment and common law right of access to court
filings.”).
In response to a motion to seal, this Court must determine whether the movant

overcomes the “strong presumption in favor of openness.” Brown & Williamson, 710
F.2d at 1179. That’s no easy task for the movant. To assess whether the movant has
made the necessary showing, the Court considers “why the interests in support of
nondisclosure are compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and
why the seal itself is no broader than necessary.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (citing
Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176). The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned
that “only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”

In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 927 F.3d 919, 940 (6th Cir. 2019) (brackets and
citation omitted). Further, any sealing order must be “narrowly tailored” to serve the
reason asserted. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. To meet this narrow-tailoring
requirement, the movant must “analyze in detail, document by document, the
propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305–06 (quoting
Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)).

Relevant here, an interest in protecting sensitive business information and
trade secrets whose disclosure could result in a competitive disadvantage can be
sufficient to support sealing. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598
(1978); Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-871, 2017 WL
4168290, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 20, 2017) (recognizing an interest in sealing
“confidential information that would otherwise allow competitors an inside look at a
company’s business strategies”); Morris v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-77, 2020
WL 3442177, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 23, 2020) (denying motion to unseal documents
that contain “confidential business information that could harm [defendant’s]

competitive standing”); Total Quality Logistics, LLC, v. Riffe, No. 1:19-cv-23, 2020
WL 5849408, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 30, 2020) (granting motion to seal documents and
spreadsheets that would reveal customer names and financial information).
An interest in protecting private third-party information can also serve as a
compelling reason to seal documents. See Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308 (“[T]he privacy
interests of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing
equation.”); Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179 (providing for an exception to the

general right of access when “certain privacy rights of participants or third parties”
are involved); Veritas Indep. Partners LLC v. Ohio Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:18-cv-769,
2022 WL 1749024, at *2 (granting motion to seal because third parties’ names were
not relevant to Court’s decision).
Here, in the first Motion, Plaintiff Weekend Warrior seeks to seal various
documents on which it intends to rely on for its upcoming Motion for Summary

Judgment. (Doc. 53, #2098). While it is Plaintiff who technically seeks leave, it
essentially is seeking leave to seal on Amazon’s behalf, as the documents were
“designated as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only by Amazon.” (Id.). In light of
that, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Seal where Weekend Warrior “agreed not to
oppose Amazon’s effort to file this evidence under seal,” but turned to Amazon to
“provide justifications” for it. (Id. at #2098–99). Amazon, for its part, provided
arguments as to why sealing is necessary. (Id. at #2100 (“Defendants’ Requests to
Seal”)). As to the second Motion, Amazon directly seeks leave to file under seal
portions of its Memorandum in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, its

Statement of Undisputed Facts, the Bundy Declaration, and the Kraft declaration,
which all refer to the first set of documents. (Doc. 69, #6931). Its arguments track the
arguments in the first motion. So whether the first set of documents can be filed under
seal will largely determine the fate of the second set.
To recap, under Shane Group, the Court must determine whether the asserted
confidentiality and competitive interests are compelling, whether the interests served
by sealing this information outweigh the value of public disclosure, and also whether

the seal is narrowly tailored to protect those privacy interests.
Amazon argues that it meets the Shane Group standard. (Doc. 53, #2100). To
start, Amazon divides the first set of documents into two categories; it seeks leave to
seal those documents identified in Exhibit A only in part (filing redacted copies
publicly) whereas it wishes to completely seal those documents identified in Exhibit
B. (Id.). It argues that the documents at issue, in both categories, contain sensitive

financial and operations information. (Id. at #2100–01). If these documents were not
sealed, at least in part, then Amazon’s “bargaining position” would be weakened.
(Id.). Additionally, Amazon claims these documents could expose innocent third-party
information, which could “invite unwanted contact or harassment, and chill future
reporting of infringement.” (Id. at #2102). Amazon argues that these are sufficiently
compelling reasons to seal, and the request is narrowly tailored because it “does not
seek to seal entire documents where line-by-line redactions suffice.” (Id. at #2102–
03).
For the second set of documents, Amazon argues that its references to the first

set of documents will expose the same confidential financial and operations
information as well as third-party information. (Doc. 69, #6932–34). It claims this
request is also narrowly tailored because it only seeks leave to file these documents
under seal in part; it solely wishes to redact the portions involving the first
documents. (Id. at #6934).
The Court finds this is one of the rare instances that meets Shane Group’s
demanding burden. Amazon has provided several compelling interests. First, the

Court concludes that portions of the documents contain confidential business
information, including financial and operations information, disclosure of which
would create a competitive disadvantage for Amazon. Amazon asserts that disclosing
the financial information would “reveal Amazon’s unit economics, undercut its
pricing strategy, and give competitors and counterparties unfair negotiating
leverage, thereby weakening Amazon’s bargaining position.” (Doc. 53, #2101). And

the Court has no reason to doubt Amazon’s assertion that the documents at issue
contain proprietary “product-level sales records, margins, cost allocations,
advertising revenue, profit analyses, and other highly confidential internal financial
reporting.” (Id.). Moreover, the information at issue is sufficiently specific and
detailed such that its disclosure could harm their competitive standing. (Id.); see Total
Quality Logistics, 2020 WL 5849408, at *2 (“This Court has repeatedly recognized
that protecting confidential information that would otherwise allow competitors an
inside look at a company’s business strategies is a compelling reason to restrict public
access to filings.” (cleaned up)).

Likewise, Amazon seeks to seal non-public operations information, including
“proprietary standard operating procedures; business strategies; notice-validation
tools; database structure; content-moderation signals, features and thresholds;
account-verification and risk-tiering gates; merchant and product listing risk criteria;
intellectual property protection protocols; internal organizational structure and
escalation paths; and proprietary, internal image recognition tools.” (Doc. 53, #2101).
Should this information become publicly known, Amazon argues, it would create a

security risk by “inviting circumvention by bad actors, enabling targeted abuse and
social-engineering attacks, degrading platform safety for consumers and rights
holders, and compromising the integrity of ongoing trust-and-safety operations.”
(Id.). Moreover, it could allow competitors to imitate these processes, thereby allowing
them to “unfairly appropriate” Amazon’s operations. (Id.). The Court agrees that this
could undermine Amazon’s standing and reduce the value of this information. See

Morris, 2020 WL 3442177, at *2.
Lastly, Amazon asserts that these documents contain third-party information,
such as “identities and contact information of content creators and notice submitters.”
(Doc. 53, #2102). Third-party information “weigh[s] heavily in a court’s balancing
equation,” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308, especially here where it could “chill future
reporting of infringement,” (Doc. 53, #2102). So the Court recognizes this as an
additional compelling interest.
Of course, a compelling interest is only half the story; on the other side sits the

public interest in disclosure. Shane Group articulates several reasons why the public
might have an interest in an open review of a court’s docket materials. For example,
a public docket ensures the public’s right to guard against corruption and the public’s
right to be on notice about what does and what does not violate the law. Shane Grp.,
825 F.3d at 305. Likewise, the public may have a legitimate interest in knowing the
basis for the Court’s decision in a given case. See Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at
1180–81. Amazon does not address the public’s interest or lack thereof. And at least

some of the documents contain information like “intellectual property protection
protocols” and “internal notice-validation tools.” (Doc. 53, #2016–07). These may
prove relevant to the Court’s ultimate decision on Plaintiff Weekend Warrior’s
copyright claims, particularly that Amazon had actual knowledge of the infringement
or refused to act on that knowledge. (Am. Compl., Doc. 17, #133–34). Nonetheless,
most of the information is non-public financial information or other proprietary

operations information that would only benefit competitors or harm third parties.
Additionally, should the case continue, “the parties expressly agreed to reserve the
right to seek to de-designate some or all of the evidence sought to be sealed for the
purposes of summary judgment so that it may be filed publicly at a later date,”
including at trial. (Doc. 53, #2098–99).3

3 The parties make the same reservation in the second Motion to Seal. (Doc. 69, #6931).
The Court finds that publicly filing redacted versions of some of the documents
will provide the public a sufficient understanding of the parties’ arguments and the
Court’s ultimate decision, and will do so in a manner that protects Amazon’s

confidential financial and operations information as well as third-party details. See
London Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-696, 2019 WL 4110516, at *4
(S.D. Ohio Aug. 29, 2019) (finding that 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”).
Finally, turn to the narrow-tailoring requirement. Here, Amazon requests the
documents in the first motion be divided into categories. (Doc. 53, #2102). It asks the

Court to seal the documents listed in Exhibit A only in part, whereas the documents
listed in Exhibit B would be sealed in full. (Id.). In each of the exhibits, Amazon
describes the document and states the basis for the alleged confidentiality. (Id. at
#2106–12). In Exhibit B, Amazon also explains why it believes the document could
not be redacted and instead must be sealed in full. (Id. at #2108–12). Mostly, those
documents are spreadsheets that “are not conducive to redaction,” or the non-public

financial/operations information is “too pervasive.” (Id.). Amazon argues these
“targeted redactions” where possible satisfy the narrow-tailoring requirement. (Id. at
#2102). Filing redacted copies on the Court’s docket generally satisfies this
requirement. See Exec. Jet Mgmt. Inc. v. Longbow Enter., LLC, No. 1:21-cv-74, 2021
WL 4952705, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2021). While the Court normally refrains from
sealing entire documents, this document-by-document approach is narrowly tailored,
and the Court agrees that certain documents could not readily be redacted (primarily
the spreadsheets). Therefore, the parties met their burden to justify sealing the
documents in the first motion under Shane Group.

Because the documents in the first motion merit sealing, the Court also
concludes that Amazon can file under seal portions of the documents listed in the
second motion. The second motion relies on the same interests as the first, which the
Court finds are compelling. (Doc. 69, #6932–34). Amazon only seeks leave to seal the
documents in part, so it will publicly file redacted copies that provide the public
sufficient context for the Court’s ultimate decision. See London Comput. Sys., Inc.,
2019 WL 4110516, at *4. And it provided a similar document-by-document chart

describing what confidential information each document contains. (Doc. 69, #6936).
So the Court finds the second request is also narrowly tailored. Thus, Amazon
satisfied the Shane Group standard for the second set of documents, too.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Weekend Warrior Clothing,

LLC’s, and Defendants Amazon.com Services, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc.’s
Unopposed Joint Motion to Seal (Doc. 53) as well as Defendants’ Unopposed Motion
to Seal (Doc. 69). The documents listed in both Motions may be filed with the Court
under seal in their unredacted form. The redacted versions of each document listed
in Exhibit A, (Doc. 53, #2106–07), and of all of the documents listed in the second
Motion, (Doc. 69, #6931), shall be filed on the public docket.
SO ORDERED.

November 13, 2025
DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11202780. Public record. Not legal advice.