North American Science Associates, LLC v. Conforti

Background

Plaintiffs North American Science Associates, LLC, also known as NAMSA, and NAMSA Holdco, LLC moved to seal three portions of the transcript of a July 25, 2024 public hearing on their amended motion for a preliminary injunction. The requested portions were lines 20:11–14, 25:19–26:4, and 40:25–41:3 of Docket Entry 328.

Plaintiffs argued that the first two portions quoted an email discussing NAMSA’s protocol for handling and documenting controlled substances. They said the information was confidential, had been designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order, and had been filed under seal. Plaintiffs argued that counsel for Dr. Conforti should have notified them before quoting the email during the hearing. Plaintiffs also sought to seal the third portion because it revealed the name of a NAMSA client, which they said was confidential and could cause reputational and competitive harm.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally have a common-law presumption of public access. That right is not absolute, but a court must balance public access against the interests supporting confidentiality. The court stated that only the most compelling reasons can justify withholding judicial records from the public.

The court found that a hearing transcript concerning a motion for preliminary injunctive relief receives a heightened presumption of public access because it reflects information considered in deciding the motion. This transcript also recorded Judge Jerry W. Blackwell’s questions and thoughts about the merits of the claims, making it particularly important to public evaluation of the court’s proceedings and ruling.

Analysis

For the two passages about NAMSA’s controlled-substance procedures, the court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Dr. Conforti’s counsel violated the protective order by reading portions of the email into the record. Plaintiffs had filed the email as an exhibit supporting their amended motion for a preliminary injunction. The court also found that counsel read the email after the court and the parties had discussed whether it contained confidential information, and that Plaintiffs did not object when the email was read during the public hearing.

The court held that material publicly disclosed in open court does not retain its confidentiality for purposes of sealing. It therefore denied the motion as to lines 20:11–14 and 25:19–26:4. The court noted that the fact that information was designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a discovery protective order did not automatically require sealing when the information was considered during adjudication of a motion. The court did not decide whether the email’s description of NAMSA’s procedures was confidential or proprietary because that question was unnecessary to resolve the motion.

For the passage identifying NAMSA’s client, the court concluded that the client’s name had also been disclosed during the hearing, but that the surrounding discussion had little or no relevance to the merits of the case. The court therefore granted the motion as to lines 40:25–41:3, beginning with “called” and ending at the end of the sentence.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Portions of the Transcript of the July 25, 2024 Hearing was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Docket Entry 328 was to remain sealed. Unless a timely objection was filed, the parties were required to request within 15 days of the order that the court reporter issue a publicly available redacted version consistent with the ruling.