Wenger S.A. v. OLIVET INTERNATIONAL INC.

Background

Shortly before the case settled, the court issued an opinion deciding a last-minute summary-judgment motion. The opinion quoted information that the parties described as confidential and highly sensitive business information. The court gave the parties an opportunity to propose redactions and then considered whether the opinion should remain sealed.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the party seeking to seal a court filing bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified. It applied the common-law right of public access to judicial documents and noted that the First Amendment also provides a qualified right of access to certain judicial documents.

The court concluded that its opinion was a judicial document because it was relevant to the court’s decision and useful in the judicial process. The presumption of public access therefore applied, and the presumption was especially strong because the opinion itself was the court’s adjudication—the decision the public should be able to examine.

The parties argued that the opinion disclosed highly confidential and sensitive business information. The court found that the information was relevant, and integral, to its decision, making redactions unworkable. It also found that the parties had not specifically described their confidentiality interests or the harm disclosure might cause. The court noted that the opinion concerned an ordinary settlement agreement, that Wenger had one related case still outstanding, that the agreement had already been produced to a defendant, and that the key settlement clause had expired. It concluded that any remaining risk to the parties was outweighed by the public’s right to know.

Disposition

Judge Arun Subramanian denied the letter motion to seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket 401 and unseal Docket 391.