Adstra, LLC v. Kinesso, LLC

Background

The court had previously directed the parties to identify which documents filed under seal still needed protection. Adstra and the defendants each submitted a letter. The court treated the letters as motions to continue sealing and ruled on them together.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access. A document is a judicial document when it is relevant to the court’s decision-making or supervisory work. The presumption is especially strong for documents submitted with summary-judgment motions and generally weaker for documents connected with discovery disputes or motions about expert testimony.

A party seeking to keep material sealed must show that sealing is necessary to protect an important interest and is limited to what is needed. Confidential commercial information, trade secrets, and certain personally identifying information may outweigh the public-access presumption when the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored.

Defendants’ motion

For the defendants’ Appendix A documents submitted with summary-judgment motions, the court approved continued sealing or limited redactions for all documents except Docket Nos. 134-1, 134-5, and 134-7. The court found that the redacted portions of those three deposition transcripts played a significant role in its February 21, 2025 opinion and order. It ordered those three documents unsealed in full.

For the defendants’ Appendix B documents, the court rejected the argument that documents connected with motions rendered unnecessary by summary judgment lost their status as judicial documents. The court held that the documents remained subject to public access because they had been relevant to the court’s consideration when filed. Still, because the documents concerned discovery and expert testimony, the court applied a lower level of public-access protection. It approved sealing or redaction for all Appendix B documents except Docket Nos. 116-7 and 116-24, which it ordered unsealed because an expert’s resume and an employee’s qualifications were not confidential business information.

For Appendix C, the court required the defendants to refile Docket Nos. 103-8, 103-9, and 103-10 with the proposed redactions highlighted. It approved reduced redactions for the other documents where the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect commercially sensitive information. It also directed that documents the defendants agreed could be unsealed in full be unsealed.

Adstra’s motion

The court approved continued sealing for the documents identified in section II of Adstra’s motion and for the documents identified in section I, except Docket Nos. 102-3, 102-7, 102-8, and 125-4. As to those four documents, the court denied the motion without prejudice to proposing more limited redactions.

Adstra also sought to keep certain legal memoranda and statements of undisputed facts sealed. The court denied that request without prejudice to proposing targeted redactions. The court stated that these documents would not remain sealed in their current form because the redacted information had been used in the court’s opinion and order and other exhibits containing related information had been unsealed.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to continue sealing. Adstra could submit proposed redactions for specified documents by April 14, 2025, and those documents would remain sealed while the court considered the proposals. The defendants also had to refile three documents with highlighted proposed redactions by that date. The court directed the defendants to publicly file specified documents with reduced redactions and directed the Clerk of Court to unseal the many documents listed in the order.