CZ Services, Inc. v. Express Scripts Holding Company

Background

The parties filed numerous motions asking the court to seal discovery letters, briefs, declarations, and exhibits. The court explained that federal court records are generally open to the public. Under the standards discussed in the order, sealing material connected to non-dispositive motions requires a particularized showing of good cause, while sealing material connected to dispositive motions—such as a summary-judgment motion—requires specific facts establishing compelling reasons.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the parties generally offered only conclusory statements that the information was highly sensitive or confidential and might harm business negotiations or give competitors an advantage. The court said those statements did not explain how a competitor could use particular information to obtain an unfair advantage. The requests also violated the district’s local rules because they sought to seal documents wholesale rather than narrowly identifying genuinely protectable material.

The court gave as an example a request by Express Scripts Holding Company and related defendants to redact large portions of a summary-judgment brief and seal more than sixty exhibits in their entirety. One exhibit was the online post forming the basis of CZ Pharmacies’ defamation claims. The court noted that the post was freely available on the internet and had been attached publicly to the first amended complaint. The order also noted that CareZone did not designate nine exhibits, including the post, as confidential and did not seek to keep them sealed.

Ruling and required filings

The court did not require the parties to redo every sealing request immediately. Instead, it gave them a second opportunity to submit a single consolidated motion identifying discrete materials and supported by particularized, non-conclusory facts. The parties had to meet and confer about sealing disputes, provide specified paper and electronic copies, and submit a proposed order identifying the exact portions to be sealed and the reasons supporting each request.

The court stated that this second opportunity did not apply to evidence cited in its summary-judgment order or expert-witness order. It determined that the parties could not establish compelling reasons for sealing that evidence and that good cause was also absent. The court directed the parties to file unredacted copies of those materials by August 14, 2020. For other materials, any renewed motion had to be filed by August 21, 2020; if no motion was filed, unredacted copies had to be placed on the public docket by August 24, 2020. The court warned that it could restrict or bar future sealing motions if the parties again failed to follow governing standards, local rules, or court orders.