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

Background

Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. and MiTek Inc. each filed an administrative motion to seal portions of testimony from a February 2023 bench trial. Simpson sought to seal testimony about revenue, profits, market size and share for particular product lines, and percentage and revenue information concerning its business with retailers. MiTek opposed Simpson’s request in part. Simpson did not oppose MiTek’s motion.

Legal standard

Because the requests concerned trial testimony, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Judicial records have a strong presumption of public access, and the party seeking secrecy must show specific facts demonstrating that disclosure would cause harm. Requests must also be narrowly tailored, and a confidentiality designation or protective order alone is not enough. Information that is already public, available elsewhere, stale, or central to the case generally should not be sealed without sufficient justification.

Simpson’s motion

The court found compelling reasons to seal some testimony concerning profits and revenue from specific parts of Simpson’s business because disclosure might harm Simpson’s competitive position. But the court rejected other requests. It found that much of the market-share information was high-level rather than product-specific, and that Simpson had not provided specific facts explaining the alleged harm. The court also noted that Simpson had used some of the information it sought to seal in its opening statement, including statements about its position in the structural-connector industry. The court therefore granted Simpson’s motion in part and denied it in part.

MiTek’s motion

MiTek sought to seal two portions of the transcript concerning the amount Simpson pays MiTek to include Simpson’s products in MiTek’s Sapphire software. MiTek argued that the fees were sensitive financial business information negotiated confidentially and that disclosure could harm one or both companies in later negotiations with third parties. The court agreed that compelling reasons supported sealing the licensing terms. It also found that MiTek’s request was narrowly limited to six lines in a 1,500-page transcript. The court granted MiTek’s motion in full.

Disposition

The court identified the transcript portions to be sealed in a table in the order and directed the clerk to coordinate with the court reporter to prepare and file redacted transcripts. The order addressed access to trial records and did not decide the underlying dispute between the companies.