The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
M.P.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 2:26-cv-306
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson
RED ROOF FRANCHISING, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Red Roof Franchising, LLC’s (“RRF”) Motion for Leave to
File a Redacted Version of the Franchise Agreement. (Doc. 45). In it, Defendant RRF seeks to
redact information regarding its fee structure in its franchise agreement with MPH Group, LLC.
(Id.). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
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. (citation omitted). “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 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.
The Court finds that Defendant RRF met its burden to overcome the presumption of access.
First, Defendant RRF argues that it has a compelling reason to redact the fee information because
“[r]evelation of this private and confidential business information could pose a serious risk to
RRF’s ability to compete with similarly situated companies by giving competitors an unfair inside
look into RRF’s business strategy.” (Doc. 45 at 5). Defendant RRF next contends that the public
has no interest in the redacted information. (Id. at 6). Finally, Defendant RRF asserts that its
request is narrowly tailored because it only seeks to redact the specific fee amounts. (Id. at 6–7).
Defendant RRF has demonstrated that the information within this document is nonpublic
and confidential, and if disclosed, would risk competitive injury, protecting such information
outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure of this information, and the proposed redactions are
narrowly tailored and no broader than necessary to protect the information at issue. Shane Grp.,
Inc., 825 F.3d at 305–06; Kondash, 767 F. App’x at 637.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant RRF’s Motion to for Leave to File a
Redacted Version of the Franchise Agreement. (Doc. 45).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: June 4, 2026 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE