Office Create Corporation v. COKeM International Ltd.

Background

Plaintiff Office Create Corporation sued Defendant COKeM International Ltd. COKeM in turn filed third-party claims against Planet Entertainment LLC and Steven Grossman. Two other entities — Plaion Inc. and Plaion GmbH — were previously defendants but settled with the plaintiff under a confidential settlement agreement and were dismissed from the case on January 6, 2026.

The immediate procedural context is a motion to exclude expert testimony. Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude the expert testimony of Christina M. Solomon (Dkt. 87), arguing her report was untimely — not challenging the substance of her damages analysis. In connection with that motion, two expert reports (those of Alan G. Goedde and Christina M. Solomon) and an excerpt of Dr. Goedde's testimony from a confidential arbitration proceeding were filed under seal.

Following the court's ruling on the exclusion motion (which turned solely on timeliness), the parties filed a Joint Motion for Continued Sealing (Dkt. 106) under Local Rule 5.6(d), seeking to keep those documents sealed.

Legal Standard: Public Right of Access

Federal courts recognize a common-law right of public access to judicial records. The Eighth Circuit has held this right supports public confidence in the judicial system and provides accountability for publicly funded courts. However, the right is not absolute — courts must balance the interference with public access against the legitimate interests served by maintaining confidentiality. The Eighth Circuit applies a sliding scale: the stronger a document's role in a court's exercise of its Article III (constitutional judicial) duties, the greater the weight of the presumption of public access. Documents that play only a negligible role receive a lower presumption. Regardless, "only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records." In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006).

Analysis

Role of the Documents in the Court's Ruling

The court first assessed how central the sealed materials were to its exercise of judicial duties. Because the underlying exclusion motion challenged only the timeliness of Ms. Solomon's report — and not the substantive damages figures — the court did not rely on the actual dollar amounts or damages analysis when ruling. Accordingly, the court found that the sealed documents played a "negligible role" in its decision-making at this stage, resulting in a low public interest in access. The court noted, however, that if these documents become relevant to future dispositive motions (such as motions for summary judgment), their role — and therefore the public's interest — would likely be significantly greater.

Category 1: Sales and Profits Data

The parties sought to keep sealed excerpts from the two expert reports containing nonpublic information about sales and profits of Plaion Inc., Plaion GmbH, and COKeM. The court acknowledged that commercially sensitive business information is not automatically sufficient to justify sealing — particularly when the public's interest is strong. Here, however, given the low public value of the information at this procedural stage, the court concluded the parties' confidentiality interests outweigh public access. The court explicitly warned that this could change if the information is relied upon in future dispositive motions.

Category 2: Confidential Arbitration Proceedings

The parties sought sealing of (a) the identity of parties and proceedings in Dr. Goedde's expert disclosure of prior testimony, and (b) an excerpt of Dr. Goedde's testimony taken in a confidential ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Arbitration, which is subject to contractual confidentiality obligations. The court found these confidentiality interests, balanced against the public's interest, justify continued sealing at this time.

Category 3: Confidential Settlement Agreement

The parties sought sealing of information derived from the confidential settlement agreement between the plaintiff and former defendants Plaion Inc. and Plaion GmbH. The court acknowledged that while encouraging settlement is a legitimate interest, it does not always override public access. Here, however, given the current procedural posture and the low public interest at this stage, the court found the parties' interests in maintaining settlement confidentiality outweigh the public's interest.

Disposition

The court granted the Joint Motion for Continued Sealing (Dkt. 106). Docket Entries 91, 91-1, and 96 will remain sealed. The court also accepted the parties' proposed redacted public versions of Docket Entries 91 and 91-1 (filed as Docket Entries 106-2 and 106-3). The court emphasized that this ruling is not determinative as to whether these documents will remain sealed if they are submitted and considered in connection with future dispositive motions.