PCiRoads v. David E. Collins
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-04389
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In PCiRoads v. Collins, Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part a joint motion to keep one page of a pricing document sealed pending a merits decision on whether it qualifies as a trade secret.
Businesses involved in litigation who seek to keep competitively sensitive pricing documents or potential trade secrets sealed in court records, and opposing parties who want those records made public.
What happened
PCiRoads, LLC v. David E. Collins, No. 25-cv-4389, involves a dispute over whether a single page of a business document should remain hidden from public view in court records. PCiRoads, a heavy civil construction company, sued David E. Collins after he allegedly shared a May 2025 pricing quote with a third party without the company's permission. When Collins removed the case from Minnesota state court to federal court, the document was temporarily filed under seal, and the parties later disagreed about whether that last page — Page 31, containing pricing information — should stay sealed.
PCiRoads argued that Page 31 contains confidential pricing information that amounts to a trade secret, and that making it public would harm its ability to compete in the industry. Collins disagreed, arguing the information is neither confidential nor a trade secret and should be made public. Both sides agreed the rest of the exhibit did not need to remain sealed.
Magistrate Judge Foster granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ordering Page 31 to remain sealed for now while the rest of the exhibit is filed publicly with that page redacted. The court explained that whether Page 31 contains a trade secret is central to the merits of the lawsuit, and resolving that question too early would be premature. Either party may later ask the court to unseal Page 31 once that underlying legal question is decided.
The detailed version
- PCiRoads v. David E. Collins · No. 0:25-cv-04389
- Dulce J. Foster
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
PCiRoads, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company operating as a heavy civil construction firm that bids on specialty infrastructure projects, filed suit against David E. Collins in Minnesota state court. Collins removed the case to federal court on November 19, 2025. As part of facilitating that removal, Collins agreed to temporarily file Exhibit B — an attachment to PCiRoads's complaint — under seal while reserving his right to object to its continued sealing.
The parties jointly moved the court regarding whether Exhibit B should remain sealed. The court ordered both sides to submit memoranda on the issue. They ultimately agreed that most of Exhibit B did not need to stay sealed, but disagreed about the final page, referred to as "Page 31."
The Disputed Document
Page 31 is described as a copy of a May 29, 2025, pricing quote that Collins prepared on behalf of PCiRoads, which Collins allegedly disclosed to a third party without PCiRoads's knowledge or approval. PCiRoads argued that Page 31 contains confidential pricing information constituting a trade secret and that public disclosure would harm its competitive position. Collins argued that the information is neither confidential nor a trade secret and does not warrant continued sealing.
Legal Standard and Court's Analysis
The court applied a balancing test, weighing the public's right of access to court records against the need for confidentiality, citing Cake Love Co. v. Ameripride Servs, LLC, No. 22-cv-1301 (PJS/ECW), 2023 WL 5277009 (D. Minn. June 22, 2023), and IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1224 (8th Cir. 2013). The court noted that whether Page 31 qualifies as a trade secret is central to several of PCiRoads's claims in the underlying lawsuit. Because that question goes to the merits of the litigation, the court found it premature to resolve the sealing issue at this early stage.
Ruling
The court granted the joint motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically: - The parties are directed to file a publicly available, redacted version of Exhibit B with Page 31 removed. - The Clerk of Court is directed to keep the full Exhibit B under seal. - The sealing of Page 31 is granted without prejudice, meaning either party may bring a motion to unseal once the underlying merits question — whether the pricing information constitutes a trade secret — is resolved.
Significance
This is a procedural order addressing document sealing at an early stage of litigation. The court expressly declined to decide whether Page 31 contains a trade secret, leaving that determination for later proceedings. The ruling does not address the underlying claims against Collins regarding the alleged unauthorized disclosure.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.