Global Commodities, Inc. v. Capital Distributors LLC
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-00216
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Global Commodities v. Capital Distributors, Judge Foster granted the parties’ motion to keep an exhibit under seal because it contained trade secrets.
The parties and the public: the parties’ exhibit filed at ECF No. 101 will remain under seal, limiting public access to the information in that document.
What happened
Global Commodities, Inc. asked the court to continue sealing portions of an exhibit filed with its motion to amend its complaint and extend a filing deadline. The court had required Global Commodities to file an unredacted version so it could reconsider whether sealing was appropriate.
The parties argued that the redacted portions contained trade secrets. The court found that the exhibit did not materially affect the court’s exercise of constitutional authority or any motion that could decide the case, and that protecting the trade secrets outweighed the public interest in access.
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing and directed the Clerk of Court to keep the unredacted exhibit filed at ECF No. 101 under seal.
The detailed version
- Global Commodities, Inc. v. Capital Distributors LLC · No. 0:24-cv-00216
- Dulce J. Foster
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The motion concerned an exhibit filed in connection with Global Commodities, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Extend the Deadline for Filing the Amended Complaint. In an earlier order, the court directed Global Commodities to file an unredacted version of the exhibit so the court could evaluate whether continued sealing was appropriate. Global Commodities filed the unredacted exhibit at ECF No. 101 and publicly filed redacted versions at ECF Nos. 64 and 102.
Parties’ Position
The parties asked the court to keep the redacted portions of the exhibit under seal because they contained trade secrets.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when information in a sealing motion does not materially contribute to the exercise of the court’s constitutional authority, or has little value to people monitoring the courts, the presumption of public access is weaker and may be overcome by a countervailing reason. The court found that the exhibit did not play a material role in the exercise of Article III power or in any motion that could decide the case. It further found that the parties’ interest in protecting trade secrets was a sufficient countervailing reason that outweighed the public interest in accessing the redacted information.
Disposition
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The order directs the Clerk of Court to keep the document filed at ECF No. 101 under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.