RoadRunner Recycling, Inc. v. Recycle Track Systems, Inc.

Background

The order addressed all pending motions to seal and supporting declarations. RoadRunner sought to seal its identification of trade secrets and 72 pages of exhibits. It also sought to seal an opposition and reply connected to its motion for leave to amend its first amended complaint. Recycle Track Systems, Inc. and RecycleSmart Solutions, Inc., referred to in the order as “Systems-and-Solutions,” opposed some of RoadRunner’s proposed redactions and proposed narrower redactions of their own.

Legal standard

The court explained that court records more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while records only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” Parties must narrowly tailor their requests, identify each document or passage to be sealed, explain the legitimate interest and potential injury supporting secrecy, explain why a less restrictive alternative would not suffice, and provide evidentiary support when necessary. Trade secrets and business information that could harm competitive standing may support redaction, but vague assertions, boilerplate, and reliance only on a protective order or stipulation are insufficient.

Rulings

The court found RoadRunner’s initial request to seal its trade-secret identification and exhibits overbroad. The proposed redactions included marketing statements, boilerplate, quotations from legal authorities, and high-level descriptions of case contentions. The court therefore denied RoadRunner’s administrative motion to seal, docket entry 46, with leave to amend.

The court also found RoadRunner’s narrowed proposed redactions relating to the opposition to its motion for leave to amend still overbroad. It denied those sealing requests with leave to amend because some redacted material referred to the trade-secret identification for which amended sealing requests were allowed. The court warned that redactions not significantly narrowed would be rejected in full.

For the reply to the opposition, the court denied RoadRunner’s superseded motion to seal, docket entry 57, as moot, and denied its superseding motion, docket entry 61, with leave to amend. In the conclusion, the court also denied Systems-and-Solutions’ motion to seal, docket entry 64, as moot. The remaining motions concerning the trade-secret identification, the opposition, and the reply were denied with leave to amend.

Deadlines and required filings

If RoadRunner chose to amend its motions, it was required to file one combined administrative motion by September 18, 2024, at noon. The filing had to identify proposed redactions passage by passage, explain the interest and injury supporting each redaction, explain why narrower redactions would not suffice, identify other docket entries containing the same excerpts, and include public redacted and non-public unredacted copies marked to show the proposed redactions. Systems-and-Solutions could oppose any amended motion, with a sworn declaration due by September 25, 2024, at noon. If RoadRunner did not amend by the first deadline, the parties were required to place unredacted copies of the filings covered by the order on the public docket by September 25, 2024, at noon, subject to the order’s stated limitations.