Pacific Steel Group v. Commercial Metals Company

Background

The court considered four motions concerning whether materials filed in connection with the parties’ motions in limine should remain sealed. Pacific Steel Group filed Docket Nos. 308 and 334. Commercial Metals Company, CMC Rebar West, and CMC Steel, LLC, collectively referred to as the defendants, filed Docket Nos. 314 and 339.

Docket Nos. 308 and 314 concerned materials filed with the motions in limine. Pacific Steel Group sought to seal documents designated confidential by a defendant and by the nonparties SMS Group, Inc. and Danieli Corporation. The defendants sought to seal documents designated confidential by Pacific Steel Group. Docket Nos. 334 and 339 concerned materials filed with the parties’ oppositions to each other’s motions in limine. The same parties and nonparties were involved in the confidentiality designations.

Legal standard

The court explained that motions to seal court records generally require “compelling reasons” supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the public’s strong interest in access to judicial records. Under the court’s local rule, when a document was designated confidential by another party or nonparty, the designating party had to file a statement or declaration explaining why the material should remain sealed within seven days of the motion. Failure to do so could result in unsealing without further notice.

Court’s analysis

Danieli argued that some identified documents contained nonpublic, commercially sensitive information, including confidential contract terms and negotiations, technical steel-mill specifications and operations, and business strategy. SMS argued that the materials included confidential preliminary contract negotiations. The court found that the information identified by Danieli and SMS met the compelling-reasons standard because disclosure could place those companies at a competitive disadvantage. The court also noted that neither nonparty had voluntarily put the information at issue in the litigation.

For Docket Nos. 308 and 314, the court granted the motions as to the materials identified by Danieli and SMS and denied the remainder. For Docket Nos. 334 and 339, the court likewise granted the motions as to the materials identified by Danieli and SMS and denied the remainder. The court stated that no other party had filed a declaration or response providing a basis to seal or redact the other materials.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ requests to seal. The requests were granted as to the materials specified by Danieli and SMS in Docket Nos. 323, 341, 342, 347, and 348, and denied otherwise. The parties were directed to file public versions of documents for which sealing was denied within ten days from the date of the order. Each party was responsible for filing conforming versions of documents it originally filed unless the parties agreed to allocate that work differently.