NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc.
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:22-cv-02345
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc., Judge Foster granted one sealing motion in part and denied it in part, and granted another.
NimbeLink Corp. and Digi International Inc.; the public’s access to the identified court filings; and a nonparty whose confidential deposition excerpt was at issue.
What happened
In NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc., the parties asked the court to decide which filings related to NimbeLink’s motions should remain sealed. They agreed that some documents should be unsealed and that one deposition excerpt should remain sealed.
The court applied the public’s general right to access court records, while recognizing that confidential business information and nonparty privacy interests can justify sealing. It ordered six filings unsealed and allowed ten filings to remain under seal.
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered the first joint sealing motion granted in part and denied in part, and the second joint sealing motion granted. The unsealing will occur 28 days after the order unless a timely request for further consideration is filed.
The detailed version
- NimbeLink Corp. v. Digi International Inc. · No. 0:22-cv-02345
- Nancy Brasel
- Sept. 6, 2024
Background
The parties filed joint motions addressing whether documents connected to NimbeLink’s motions to dismiss Digi International Inc.’s inequitable-conduct counterclaims should remain sealed. The first motion concerned ECF Nos. 222, 225, 225-1, 225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5, 226, 226-1, 226-2, 226-3, 235, and 246. The parties agreed that ECF No. 225-1 should remain sealed and that ECF Nos. 226, 226-1, 226-2, and 226-3 should be unsealed. The second motion concerned ECF Nos. 269 and 274, and the parties agreed those documents should be unsealed.
Judge Nancy E. Brasel had previously granted NimbeLink’s motion concerning discretionary declaratory-judgment jurisdiction and denied NimbeLink’s inequitable-conduct motion without prejudice as moot. The sealing dispute was considered in light of that ruling.
Legal standard
Court filings generally have a common-law presumption of public access. That presumption can be overcome when the party seeking secrecy provides a sufficient countervailing reason, including confidential business information or privacy interests. The strength of the presumption depends partly on how materially the documents contributed to the court’s exercise of its judicial power.
Analysis
Because Judge Brasel’s ruling made the inequitable-conduct motion moot, the documents connected to that motion did not materially contribute to the decision. The court therefore considered whether countervailing reasons supported continued sealing.
The court ordered ECF Nos. 226, 226-1, 226-2, and 226-3 unsealed because the parties agreed they were already publicly available. It allowed ECF No. 225-1 to remain sealed because it was an excerpt from a deposition transcript designated confidential by a nonparty, and the court found compelling privacy interests supporting continued sealing.
The court also allowed ECF Nos. 222, 225, 225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5, 235, and 246 to remain sealed. It found that NimbeLink’s concerns about disclosure of confidential business-strategy communications provided a sufficient countervailing reason. The court stated that waiving privilege did not necessarily waive confidentiality.
The court ordered ECF Nos. 269 and 274 unsealed because both parties agreed they did not require continued sealing.
Disposition
Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered that the first Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing, ECF No. 249, was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The court ordered the second Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing, ECF No. 281, GRANTED.
The clerk was directed to unseal ECF Nos. 226, 226-1, 226-2, 226-3, 269, and 274 28 days after the order’s date, unless a timely motion for further consideration was filed. The clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 222, 225, 225-1, 225-2, 225-3, 225-4, 225-5, 235, and 246 under seal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.