United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge.
I.
Background
Upon
the settlement of this case, the court denied as moot
Davis's motion to unseal certain documents previously
filed under seal. However, pursuant to its independent
obligation to ensure that documents relevant to the judicial
function are accessible to the public, the court notified the
parties that it would unseal the documents identified by the
motion absent objection by either party. Laaman filed a
timely objection requesting that some documents on the docket
remain sealed in their entirety and that other documents be
made available to the public only in redacted form. The court
assumes familiarity with the history of this case and the
court's previous rulings.
II.
Discussion
A.
Legal Standard
To
obtain approval to file a document under seal, and thereby
block a court document from public view, a party must make a
particularized showing of good cause why the Court should
depart from the strong presumption against sealing court
records from public inspection. See Nixon v. Warner
Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99 (1978) (directing
lower courts to “weigh[] the interests advanced by the
parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the
courts”); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110, 120-22 (2d Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Amodeo,
44 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.1995). The public and the press have
a “qualified First Amendment right . . . to access
certain judicial documents, ” including inspecting and
making copies of judicial documents and docket sheets.
Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (quoting Hartford
Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 91 (2d Cir.
2004)). “[D]ocuments used by parties moving for, or
opposing, summary judgment should not remain under seal
absent the most compelling reasons.” Id. at
123 (quoting Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d
Cir. 1982)); Brown v. Maxwell, 2019 WL 2814839 at *5
(2d Cir. 2019) (“[E]vidence introduced at trial or in
connection with summary judgment enjoys a strong presumption
of public access.”). However, upon a showing of
compelling circumstances, the Court may order certain records
to be sealed. Hartford Courant Co., 380 F.3d at 96
(the presumption of open access to judicial records is
rebuttable only “upon demonstration that suppression is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored
to serve that interest” (internal quotations omitted)).
“In
most cases, a judge must carefully and skeptically review
sealing requests to insure that there really is an
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.” In
re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir.1994)
(citation omitted); see SEC v. TheStreet.com, 273
F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir.2001). Moreover, ordinarily, a court
must make that determination on the basis of a careful review
of the particular portions of each document a party wishes to
file under seal and after considering whether the requested
order is no broader than necessary to serve the interests
that require protection. See Amodeo, 71 F.3d at
1050-51; see also Brown, 2019 WL 2814839 at *1
(vacating District Court's order for failure to conduct a
particularized review of the documents to be sealed).
Courts
nonetheless often limit access to confidential business
documents to protect litigants from unfair competitive
disadvantage. See In re New York Times Co. to Unseal
Wiretap & Search Warrant Materials, 577 F.3d 401,
410 n.4 (2d Cir. 2009) (“When litigation requires
disclosure of trade secrets, the court may disclose certain
materials only to the attorneys involved.”);
Encyclopedia Brown Productions, Ltd. v. Home Box Office,
Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“Potential
damage from release of trade secrets is a legitimate basis
for sealing documents and restricting public access during
trial.”). Commonly sealed documents include those
containing “trade secrets, confidential research and
development information, marketing plans, revenue
information, pricing information, and the like.”
Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 184 F.R.D.
504, 506 (E.D.N.Y.1999); see also Int'l Info Sys SEC
Cert. Consortium v. Security Univ., 2014 WL 3891287 at
*12 (D. Conn. 2014) (permitting the sealing of revenue
figures); Go SMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D.
P.C., 769 F.Supp.2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
(permitting the sealing of materials that include trade
secrets alleged to have been misappropriated by the
defendant); Hesse v. SunGard Systems Intern., 2013
WL 174403 at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (permitting the sealing of
“billing rates and project pricing, as well as details
of specific projects completed for several clients”);
CSL Silicones, Inc. v. Midsun Group, Inc. 2017 WL
4750701, at *3 (D. Conn. 2017) (“[C]onfidential
‘commercial information' of a business-including
trade secrets, confidential research, internal business
documents and information about a business's
operations-has been recognized repeatedly as a proper subject
for sealing.”) (citations omitted). In order for
sealing to be justified, a movant must make a particularized
showing “that disclosure would harm movant's
competitive position and that the asserted harm outweighs the
presumption of public access.” Encyclopedia Brown
Productions, 26 F.Supp.2d at 613; see also In re
Document Technologies Litigation, 282 F.Supp.3d 743, 747
(S.D.N.Y. 2017).
B.
The Sealed Materials
Laaman
requests that several documents remain entirely or partially
sealed, including (1) documents filed by both parties in
connection with Davis's motion for summary judgment, (2)
a document filed by Laaman in connection with Davis's
motion in limine, and (3) an exhibit to the parties'
joint trial memorandum, also filed by Laaman. The specific
materials Laaman requests to remain sealed fall into several
broad categories: (1) resources that Laaman provides to
paying clients in connection with her services, (2)
Davis's alleged copies of these same resources, (3)
descriptions of the resources, (4) Laaman's revenue
figures, and (5) the identity of Laaman's clients. I
analyze each of these categories in turn.[1]
1.
Resources Laaman Provides to Clients
As part
of the consulting services it offers to pet-care facilities,
Laaman provides various resources intended to help them
increase their profitability. These include, for example,
customer service training materials, telephone scripts, and
tools to track and optimize profitability. At issue in this
suit was whether Davis had misappropriated these materials
from Laaman. Consequently, many of these resources were filed
with the court in their entirety.
Laaman
has succeeded in making a particularized showing that
disclosure of these materials would cause Laaman competitive
harm that outweighs the presumption of open access. Laaman
appears to be a successful business with significant revenue.
Access to these materials, which are voluminous and appear to
represent a substantial portion of Laaman's suite of
services, would be of significant value to competitors, who
could adopt them in whole or in part and use them to compete
with Laaman (indeed, as Davis is plausibly alleged to have
done). This would impose significant competitive harm on
Laaman.
Moreover,
the public interest in these documents is modest, as their
content does not affect the general public. “Financial
records of a [private] business, family affairs, illnesses,
embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and
similar matters will weigh more heavily against access than
conduct affecting ...