R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C.
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:22-cv-00942
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In R. L. Mlazgar Associates v. Focal Point, Judge Foster granted the parties’ motion to keep specified filings sealed.
The parties, the clerk of court, and members of the public seeking access to the specified filings were affected. The court’s ruling preserved the seal over the listed documents but did not resolve whether attorney-client privilege had been waived.
What happened
R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C. concerned whether certain filings connected to a protective-order dispute should remain sealed. The parties agreed that some materials contained confidential financial information or confidential deposition information, but disagreed about two filings involving an email claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege.
The court found sufficient justification to continue sealing the financial documents, the email, a related deposition excerpt, and the redacted portions of the plaintiff’s response. The court did not decide whether the defendants had waived attorney-client privilege by disclosing the email during discovery.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing and directed the clerk to keep the specified filings under seal. The court said either party could later ask to unseal the email and related deposition excerpt if the court determined that privilege had been waived.
The detailed version
- R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C. · No. 0:22-cv-00942
- Nancy Brasel
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing concerning the plaintiff’s response to the defendants’ motion to prevent the deposition of Hoyt Webb and several exhibits. The plaintiff had filed the response and exhibits temporarily under seal and had also filed public redacted versions.
The parties agreed that the redacted portions of the response should remain sealed because they referred to exhibits and deposition transcripts that the defendants had designated confidential. They also agreed that three exhibits should remain sealed because they contained confidential financial information. The parties disagreed about two other exhibits: an email designated as attorney-client privileged and a deposition excerpt discussing that email.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access, but that right is not absolute. The court must balance public access against legitimate interests in confidentiality. Materials filed in support of non-dispositive motions—motions that do not decide the merits of the case—receive a weaker presumption of public access.
The court found that the three exhibits containing confidential financial information should remain sealed because the parties’ interest in protecting that information was not outweighed by the public’s access rights.
The court also found that the email and related deposition excerpt warranted continued sealing. The email appeared on its face to be an attorney-client communication about a legal issue among the defendants’ executives and Legrand Holding, Inc.’s general counsel. But the court stated that the parties had not sufficiently briefed whether the defendants waived attorney-client privilege by disclosing the email during discovery, or whether any disclosure was inadvertent and properly corrected. The court therefore did not decide the privilege-waiver question.
Ruling
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. The clerk was directed to keep ECF Nos. 246, 247-6, 247-7, 247-8, 247-14, and 247-15 under seal. The court also stated that either party could later move to unseal ECF Nos. 247-14 and 247-15 if the court determined that attorney-client privilege had been waived.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.