Nextpulse, LLC v. Brunswick Corporation

Background

Brunswick Corporation filed a third administrative motion asking the court to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed. The request concerned a document Brunswick described as a May 4, 2018 Cooperation Agreement. Brunswick filed the document with its opposition to Defendant eGym’s motion to dismiss Brunswick’s Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint. Nextpulse, LLC had previously designated the document as confidential.

The court noted that the case had been remanded to California state court in early 2023. It also noted that Nextpulse did not file, within seven days of Brunswick’s motion, the declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) explaining why the document should remain sealed.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally are subject to a strong presumption of public access. A party seeking to seal records attached to a dispositive motion generally must show compelling reasons supported by specific facts. Records attached to nondispositive motions are subject to a lower good-cause standard, which still requires a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice. The local rules also require the party seeking sealing to consider reasonable alternatives, minimize sealed material, explain the injury that would result from disclosure, and explain why a less restrictive alternative would not work.

Ruling

The court found that sealing the Cooperation Agreement was unwarranted because Nextpulse had not followed the applicable local-rule requirement. The court nevertheless gave Nextpulse an opportunity to justify continued sealing because the case had been remanded and the issue might not have been on Nextpulse’s radar.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied Brunswick’s administrative motion without prejudice. Within seven days, Nextpulse could file a declaration justifying continued sealing on the federal docket. Alternatively, the parties could submit a joint request to withdraw the document. If neither occurred, the parties would be required to file a public version of the document.