# Opinion

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · April 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11359682

## Case

- **Full name:** Atlantic Recording Corporation, et al. v. Designer Brands Inc., et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** April 27, 2026
- **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/11359682

## Opinion text

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

ATLANTIC RECORDING
CORPORATION, et al., :
:
Plaintiffs, :
: Case No. 2:25-cv-00479
v. : Judge Michael H. Watson
: Magistrate Judge S. Courter M. Shimeall
:
DESIGNER BRANDS INC., et al., :
:
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal (ECF No. 63), wherein Plaintiffs request that the Court allow them to file their concurrently
filed Supplemental Motion to Compel (ECF No. 64) under seal. For the following reasons,
Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v.
Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July
24, 2017). The Sixth Circuit has directed that documents filed with the Court may be placed under
seal “[o]nly for the most compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d
470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). “A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying the
seal exists even if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed.” White v. Wilberforce
Univ., No. 1:16-CV-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) (emphasis in
original) (citing Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595
(6th Cir. 2016)). The proponent of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail, document by
document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., Inc., 825
F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). These
reasons and legal citations must be sufficient for a district court to “set forth specific findings and
conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.” Rudd Equip. Co., Inc., 834 F.3d at 594.

Here, Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to meet the high standard set forth by the Sixth Circuit.
Plaintiffs assert that filing under seal is necessary because the concurrently filed motion discusses
and relies on documents that Defendants have designated “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
EYES ONLY” under the parties’ stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 29). (ECF No. 63.) But
the parties’ agreement to maintain confidentiality, standing alone, does not constitute a compelling
reason for filing under seal. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165,
1180 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind
the court in any way”); White, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (finding the parties’ joint motion to file
under seal woefully inadequate where they merely asserted that they decided to keep the terms of
their settlement confidential); In re Black Diamond Mining Co., LLC, No. 15-96, 2016 WL

4433356, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016) (explaining that the existence of a confidentiality
agreement, alone, is not a compelling reason to seal a record). Thus, even when the parties have
agreed among themselves to keep documents confidential, a proponent of sealing must provide
compelling reasons justifying sealing.
Plaintiffs have failed to do so. This is unsurprising, as Plaintiffs do not assert an interest
in keeping the documents at issue confidential. Rather, it is Defendants who assert that interest,
and it therefore is Defendants’ burden to meet the Shane Grp. standard. Indeed, the Stipulated
Protective Order entered in this case outlines the process that should ordinarily be followed if a
party wishes to file a document under seal but is not the party or parties that might be prejudiced
by public disclosure. (ECF No. 29.) Specifically, the filing party is to give the potentially
prejudiced party or parties written notice of its intent to file the at-issue documents fourteen days
prior to any anticipated filing, and then the potentially prejudiced party or parties will have seven
days thereafter to move for sealing. (Id. at PAGEID #: 236.)

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 63) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The Court, however, will afford Defendants an opportunity to submit a properly-supported motion
for the at-issue documents to be sealed WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS
ORDER. Defendants are cautioned that any forthcoming motions regarding filing documents
under seal should be narrowly tailored, as the sealing of documents must be no broader than
necessary. See Shane Group, Inc., 825 F.3d at 305. If Defendants do not file such a motion within
this timeframe, Plaintiffs shall file the unredacted version of the supplemental motion and
supporting documents on the public docket without further order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ S. Courter M. Shimeall
S. COURTER M. SHIMEALL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11359682. Public record. Not legal advice.