Vectair Systems Inc. v. Fresh Products, Inc.
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- 0:24-cv-01454
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Vectair Systems v. Fresh Products, Judge Wright granted the parties’ motion to keep specified documents sealed.
Vectair Systems Inc. and Fresh Products, Inc.; the specified docket entries will remain sealed for now, limiting public access to those documents.
What happened
In Vectair Systems Inc. v. Fresh Products, Inc., the parties jointly asked the court to continue sealing an opposition memorandum and four exhibits filed in connection with Vectair’s motion to reduce the number of asserted claims.
The court weighed the public’s right to inspect court records against the need to protect information about development of the accused products. Based on the parties’ statements, its review of the documents, and the case’s current stage, the court found that confidentiality outweighed public access for now.
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the joint motion. Docket Entries 55, 58, 58-1, 58-2, and 58-3 will remain sealed, although the order does not decide whether they may remain sealed if later filed and considered in connection with dispositive motions.
The detailed version
- Vectair Systems Inc. v. Fresh Products, Inc. · No. 0:24-cv-01454
- Elizabeth Cowan Wright
- June 5, 2025
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6(d). The motion concerned documents filed under seal in connection with Vectair Systems Inc.’s motion to streamline the number of asserted claims. The documents included Fresh Products, Inc.’s opposition memorandum and Exhibits 1 through 4 to the declaration of Rhett Ramsey. A redacted version of the opposition memorandum had been filed publicly.
The parties stated that the documents contained information about development of the accused products that Vectair had designated as confidential or attorneys’ eyes only under the case’s protective order. They asked that the documents remain sealed because the information was maintained as nonpublic and confidential.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access. That right is not absolute, however. The court must weigh the public interest in access against the interests served by keeping the information confidential. The court also noted that merely designating information as confidential under a protective order is not, by itself, a valid basis for continued sealing.
Court’s analysis
After considering the parties’ representations, reviewing the documents, and considering the procedural posture of the case, the court concluded that the need to protect the information outweighed the public’s right of access at this stage of the litigation. The court cautioned that this decision did not determine whether the information would remain sealed if it were later filed and considered in connection with dispositive motions.
The court also directed the parties going forward to provide a short explanation supporting continued sealing beyond simply stating that information had been designated confidential under the protective order. The court stated that it could order documents unsealed if the parties did not provide such a basis.
Disposition
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing. The order provides that Docket Entries 55, 58, 58-1, 58-2, and 58-3 will remain sealed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.