BLST Northstar, LLC v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:22-cv-02210
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In BLST Northstar v. Santander Consumer USA, Judge Foster granted continued sealing for sensitive records and ordered specified exhibits unsealed.
BLST Northstar, LLC, BLST Receivable and Servicing, LLC, Santander Consumer USA, Inc., and third parties whose confidential contractual or business information appeared in the records.
What happened
BLST Northstar, LLC v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. involved the parties’ joint request about keeping records sealed in connection with Santander’s summary-judgment motion and two requests to exclude expert testimony. The records included briefs and exhibits containing contract terms, confidentiality obligations, and sensitive business information.
The court said judicial records are generally presumed open to the public, but that presumption can be overcome by compelling reasons. After reviewing the records, the court found that the parties’ and third parties’ interests in protecting competitively sensitive or contractually confidential information outweighed the public interest in access.
Judge Foster granted the joint sealing motion. The Clerk was ordered to keep the specified documents under seal and unseal the specified documents that the parties had agreed could be made public. The order did not decide the summary-judgment or expert-testimony motions themselves.
The detailed version
- BLST Northstar, LLC v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. · No. 0:22-cv-02210
- Paul Magnuson
- Nov. 15, 2024
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The motion concerned documents filed in connection with Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc.’s:
- Motion for Summary Judgment; - Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Jay Guskind; and - Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Allen Ferrell.
The parties had filed briefs and exhibits under seal, along with publicly filed redacted versions when appropriate. They asked the court to keep specified records sealed because they contained contract terms covered by confidentiality provisions, duties owed to the parties and a third contracting entity, confidential business information, or agreements whose disclosure could cause a competitive disadvantage. The parties also agreed that certain specified documents could be unsealed.
Legal standard
The court explained that parties may seal civil-case documents only under a statute or rule, or with court permission. Judicial records carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that right is not absolute. Because the records were connected to dispositive motions and could play a role in decisions on the underlying motions, the court applied the standard requiring compelling reasons to overcome public access.
Analysis and ruling
After reviewing the sealed documents, the court found that each document it addressed contained sensitive or proprietary business information that was competitively sensitive or subject to contractual nondisclosure obligations. The court concluded that the legitimate confidentiality interests of the parties and one or more third parties outweighed the public interest in unsealing those records.
The court also reviewed the documents that the parties agreed should be unsealed and found that unsealing them was appropriate. It therefore granted the parties’ joint motion as follows:
1. The Clerk was directed to keep the specified briefs and exhibits under seal, including documents associated with the summary-judgment motion and the two expert-testimony motions. 2. The Clerk was directed to unseal the documents filed at ECF Nos. 112-2, 112-6, 115-16, 115-18, 115-19, 115-20, 133-1, 145-3, 145-10, 147-28, and 147-53.
This order addressed sealing and unsealing only. It did not rule on the underlying summary-judgment motion or either motion to exclude testimony.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.