Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE

Background

The plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal documents submitted with their opposition to Defendant Eisenmann Corporation’s motion to retain confidentiality designations. The documents were connected to a discovery-related motion rather than a motion addressing the merits of the case.

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because these materials were filed in connection with a discovery-related motion, the court applied the lower “good cause” standard for sealing rather than the “compelling reasons” standard used for records more closely tied to the underlying claims.

Rulings

The court granted the motion as to the redacted portions of Exhibit G to the supplemental declaration of William C. Dresser, filed at Docket 525-1. It found good cause because the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect information concerning the parties’ confidential settlement agreement.

The court granted the motion on the same basis as to the redacted portions of Exhibits H and J-2 to the supplemental Dresser declaration, also filed at Docket 525-1.

As to Exhibit L to the supplemental Dresser declaration, the court denied the motion to the extent it sought to seal that document. The court stated that this version of Exhibit L contained no redactions and had not been filed under seal. The court separately stated that Exhibit L to the Dresser sealing declaration at Docket 527 was a different document that could remain under seal. That document was an email containing only an introductory message that the court did not consider in ruling on the confidentiality-designations motion and a copy of the supplemental Dresser declaration that was sealed for the stated reasons.

The court granted the motion as to the redacted portions of Exhibit M to the supplemental Dresser declaration. It found good cause to seal portions concerning the parties’ confidential settlement agreement. The remaining redactions identified the names of people described as Vuzen employees whose identities remained confidential under the parties’ protective order.

Disposition and effect

The court granted the sealing requests for the specified redacted portions, denied the request concerning the unredacted and previously unsealed version of Exhibit L, and allowed the separate Exhibit L filed at Docket 527 to remain under seal. The order addressed access to particular court documents and did not resolve the underlying claims or defenses.