CDK Global, LLC v. Tekion Corp.

Background

The parties filed administrative motions asking to seal portions of briefing and attached evidence submitted in connection with CDK’s motion for a preliminary injunction. CDK and Tekion each sought to seal portions of their own and other parties’ filings. InDesign did not seek to seal information it had filed under seal.

Legal standard

The court stated that court records are subject to a strong presumption of public access. Because the preliminary-injunction motion was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, sealing may be justified when court files could become a vehicle for improper purposes. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which permits sealing only when the material is privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to legal protection. Requests must be narrowly tailored, and redaction is preferred when possible.

Rulings on the requests

The court considered each filing and exhibit separately. It allowed sealing for material that disclosed confidential agreements, nonpublic information about the functioning and technical or security aspects of CDK’s dealer-management software, cybersecurity information, business practices, confidential information about Tekion’s migration process, and information about third-party licensees or other nonparties. It also allowed sealing of certain documents because they were available only through a protected dealer website or were confidential agreements whose details had not been discussed publicly.

The court denied or limited sealing where the material had already appeared in the public complaint or briefs, had been discussed in open court, repeated public allegations, did not reveal confidential business information, or was not adequately identified. For example, the court denied sealing of specified portions of CDK’s preliminary-injunction motion, portions of declarations and deposition exhibits, a line in an email quoted in the complaint, and certain portions of other exhibits. The court denied Tekion’s requests to seal entire exhibits when those requests were overbroad and included material that was not properly sealable. It also denied CDK’s request to seal an entire exhibit where CDK had not specified which portions should be sealed, while stating that CDK could seek sealing again if it identified the sealable portions and explained the reasons.

The order contains different dispositions for individual requests, including “Granted,” “Granted in part,” “Denied in part,” and “Denied.” In several instances, the court ordered sealing only for specifically identified paragraphs, pages, lines, or highlighted portions, while requiring the remainder of the filing or exhibit to remain unredacted.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties to file public versions of each document covered by the table according to the court’s rulings no later than September 5, 2025. The court stated that the order disposed of Docket Nos. 61, 64, 67, 72, and 80.