Carvana, LLC v. International Business Machines Corporation

Background

Both parties had asked to file documents under seal in connection with a discovery dispute. IBM sought to seal its letter asking the court to compel discovery and supporting materials, including deposition excerpts and party communications. IBM later sought to seal unredacted deposition transcripts. Carvana sought to seal unredacted affidavits concerning technical aspects of the case.

The court had resolved the underlying discovery dispute in an earlier opinion, but the sealing requests remained unresolved. The remaining issue was whether the documents should be kept from public view.

Sealing standard

The court explained that filed documents are generally subject to a presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, the court had to make specific findings that sealing was necessary to protect important interests and was narrowly tailored to serve those interests. Courts in the district commonly allow sealing or redaction of commercially sensitive and financial information to protect confidential business interests.

Ruling

The court reviewed IBM’s proposed redactions to the documents filed as ECF Nos. 117 and 126. It found that the redactions were narrowly tailored and covered only commercially sensitive information. The redacted versions, ECF Nos. 118 and 127, could remain on the public docket, while ECF Nos. 117 and 126 could remain sealed in their entirety.

The court also found that ECF Nos. 129 and 130, which contained witness affidavits, facially included commercially sensitive information. It determined that sealing those filings in their entirety was the narrowest appropriate method.

The court directed the Clerk to maintain ECF Nos. 117, 126, 129, and 130 under seal, viewable only to selected parties. It also directed the Clerk to close out the sealing motions at ECF Nos. 116, 125, and 128. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik.