Fitzgerald v. Jeff Anderson & Associates
- Dulce Foster
- 0:26-cv-01486
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Fitzgerald v. Jeff Anderson & Associates, Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint motion to keep certain case exhibits sealed.
Parties in civil litigation who file documents under seal — particularly those seeking to keep engagement agreements or data breach notifications out of the public record. Also relevant to law firms and clients involved in data breach litigation where court filings may contain sensitive relationship or breach details.
What happened
In Fitzgerald v. Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA (Case No. 26-cv-1486), Andrew Fitzgerald sued the law firm, which moved to dismiss the case. The presiding district judge granted that motion to dismiss without prejudice and entered judgment. The parties then jointly asked the court to keep three exhibits — filed in connection with the dismissal motion — permanently sealed, arguing they contained privileged, confidential, or sensitive information about the parties' prior attorney-client relationship and a data breach.
The court applied the legal standard that the public has a common-law right of access to court records, but that right is not absolute. A court must balance the public's interest in open records against any legitimate interest in keeping information confidential. The court found that one exhibit — an engagement agreement — contained proprietary business information that justified keeping it sealed. The other two exhibits were data breach notifications, and the court found the parties had not shown a sufficiently compelling reason to keep those from the public.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted in part and denied in part the joint motion to seal. The engagement agreement (ECF No. 20-1) will remain sealed. The two data breach notifications (ECF Nos. 20-2 and 20-3) will be unsealed unless either party files a motion for further consideration of sealing them by September 15, 2026.
The detailed version
- Fitzgerald v. Jeff Anderson & Associates · No. 0:26-cv-01486
- Dulce J. Foster
- Aug. 25, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Andrew Fitzgerald sued Defendant Jeff Anderson & Associates, PA. The presiding District Judge, the Honorable Jeffrey M. Bryan, granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss — filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim) — without prejudice, and entered judgment accordingly.
In connection with that dismissal motion, three exhibits were filed under seal: ECF No. 20-1 (described as an engagement agreement), ECF No. 20-2 (a data breach notification), and ECF No. 20-3 (another data breach notification). The parties jointly moved to keep all three exhibits sealed, arguing they contained privileged and confidential information about the parties' prior attorney-client relationship, confidential information about a data breach at issue in the case, and/or confidential information about Plaintiff's ability to enroll in free credit monitoring related to that breach.
Legal Standard
Under Local Rule 5.6(a)(1), parties may seal documents in a civil case only as provided by statute or rule, or with court permission. The Eighth Circuit (the federal appellate court with jurisdiction over this district) has recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial records, citing IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220 (8th Cir. 2013), and the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). That right, however, is not absolute.
The court must weigh the degree to which sealing would interfere with the public's right of access against the legitimate interests served by keeping the information confidential. The weight given to the presumption of access depends on the role the material played in the exercise of the court's judicial power and the value of the information to those who monitor the federal courts. The court cited Cajune v. Independent School District 194, 105 F.4th 1070 (8th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995).
Rulings on Each Exhibit
ECF No. 20-1 — Engagement Agreement (Remain Sealed)
The court agreed that this exhibit — described as an engagement agreement — contains proprietary business information sufficient to justify continued sealing. The motion to seal this document was granted.
ECF Nos. 20-2 and 20-3 — Data Breach Notifications (Unsealing Ordered)
The court found that these two data breach notifications do not appear to contain confidential or proprietary information, and that the parties had not established a compelling reason to keep them sealed that would outweigh the public's right of access. The court ordered these documents unsealed, subject to either party filing a motion for further consideration of sealing under Local Rule 5.6(f) by September 15, 2026.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted in part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing (ECF No. 29). ECF No. 20-1 will remain under seal. ECF Nos. 20-2 and 20-3 will be unsealed by the Clerk of Court unless a motion for further consideration is filed by September 15, 2026.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.