Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. MiTek Inc.

Background

The court considered the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal materials submitted with their motions for summary judgment and expert-witness motions. Because the materials related principally to summary-judgment motions, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard, which requires a strong, specific justification for restricting public access to judicial records. The court also required sealing requests to be narrowly tailored and to explain why redaction or another less restrictive alternative would not be sufficient.

Simpson’s motions

Simpson asked to seal several exhibits in their entirety based on claimed confidential intellectual-property, business-development, research-and-development, and internal-strategy information. The court found that Simpson had not shown compelling reasons to seal those exhibits completely or explained why narrower redactions would not protect its interests.

The court therefore denied, without prejudice, Simpson’s administrative motion to seal Exhibits 78, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 132, 133, 136, and 138 in their entirety. The court allowed Simpson to renew that request by filing a statement or declaration complying with the applicable local rule by January 27, 2023.

MiTek supported sealing other exhibits containing its confidential business-development, internal-strategy, intellectual-property, and settlement information. The court found that MiTek had shown compelling reasons and complied with the local rules. It granted the motion to seal Exhibits 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 46, 221, and H in their entirety, and granted the motion to seal limited portions of Exhibits 3, 14, 305, A, C, D, and J. MiTek was required to file redacted public versions of those exhibits by January 27, 2023. MiTek also had to file Exhibits 5, 226, and 227 publicly because it agreed that sealing was unnecessary.

The court granted the motion to seal limited portions of Simpson’s summary-judgment motion, opposition, and reply brief. Because redacted versions were already on the public docket, no further action was required for those filings. The court also granted Simpson’s request to seal limited portions of its opposition and reply briefs concerning the terms, interpretation, and communications surrounding the parties’ confidential settlement of a 2013 trademark-infringement lawsuit.

MiTek’s motions

MiTek filed five administrative motions, but the court found that Docket Nos. 73 and 75 were identical. The court understood Docket No. 75 to be MiTek’s motion concerning Simpson’s materials and treated Docket No. 73 as an apparent duplicate filed in error. The court did not rule on Docket No. 73 at that time and ordered MiTek to file a corrected administrative motion addressing its attachments by January 27, 2023.

MiTek asked the court to seal portions of Exhibit 8 that Simpson had designated as confidential. Simpson, however, had not filed the supporting statement or declaration required by the local rule. The court also concluded that, even if Simpson had complied with the rule, it had not shown compelling reasons for sealing the information. The court denied the motion to seal Exhibit 8 and ordered MiTek to file an unredacted version publicly by January 27, 2023.

The court granted MiTek’s motion to seal limited portions of MiTek’s opposition and reply briefs concerning sensitive information about the parties’ previous settlement agreement. Redacted versions had already been filed publicly, so no further action was required.

Disposition

The sealing motions were granted in part and denied in part. The order addressed access to specific exhibits and brief passages; it did not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment motions or the merits of their dispute.