Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.

Background

The court considered several administrative motions to seal materials connected with Defendants Rocket Resume, Inc. and Stephen Zimmerman’s motion for summary judgment and motion to preclude damages theory. The materials included portions of motions, oppositions, declarations, and exhibits. The parties sought to protect nonpublic business information, including finances, business operations, business strategies, corporate structure, internal competitive metrics, business transactions, and information about customers and subscribers.

Legal standard

Because the requested sealing concerned filings related to summary judgment and the damages-theory motion, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, material connected more than tangentially to the merits may be sealed only when compelling reasons justify secrecy. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires sealing requests to explain the interests supporting secrecy, the injury that would result from disclosure, why a less restrictive option would not be sufficient, and why the request is narrowly limited to material that can properly be sealed.

Rulings on Defendants’ motions concerning Bold’s material

The court granted Defendants’ administrative motions at ECF Nos. 201 and 209. These motions concerned portions of Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and supporting exhibits that Bold had designated highly confidential. The court found compelling reasons to seal the identified portions because they discussed Bold’s nonpublic corporate structure and finances and disclosure could cause competitive harm. The court also found the proposed redactions narrowly tailored.

The court granted Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal at ECF No. 202. It approved sealing highlighted portions of Defendants’ motion to preclude damages theory and Exhibits D, H, and I identified in the ruling table. The court ordered Defendants to combine the approved redactions from ECF Nos. 202 and 215 and file redacted versions of the motion and Exhibits D, E, G, H, I, and J on the public docket within seven days of the order.

The court ruled on Defendants’ motions concerning their summary-judgment materials at ECF Nos. 206 and 210 as follows: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. It granted sealing for highlighted portions of the summary-judgment motion and Exhibit E because they contained nonpublic information about Bold’s corporate structure and finances that could cause competitive harm. It denied sealing the entirety of Exhibits A and D because those requests were not narrowly tailored. It also denied sealing the entirety of Exhibits F, G, H, and I because Bold represented that those documents did not need to be sealed. The denials concerning Exhibits A and D were without prejudice to Bold filing a renewed statement seeking narrower redactions. Defendants were ordered to file redacted versions of the summary-judgment motion and Exhibit E and unredacted versions of Exhibits F, G, H, and I within seven days.

Rulings on Bold’s motion concerning its opposition to the damages-theory motion

The court ruled on Bold’s administrative motion at ECF No. 217 as follows: GRANTED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. It granted sealing for highlighted portions of Bold’s opposition to the damages-theory motion and Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T identified in the table, finding that the materials contained nonpublic information about Bold’s business operations and finances that could cause competitive harm. It denied sealing the entirety of Exhibit J because the request was not narrowly tailored. The denial concerning Exhibit J was without prejudice to Bold filing a renewed motion seeking narrow redactions.

The court ruled on Bold’s administrative motion at ECF No. 218 as follows: GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART. The court granted sealing for highlighted portions of Exhibits M, P, Q, and R because they contained nonpublic information about Defendants’ business operations and finances that could cause competitive harm. It denied sealing the highlighted portions of Bold’s opposition because Defendants represented that the opposition did not need to be sealed. It denied sealing the entirety of Exhibit T because the request was not narrowly tailored. The denial concerning Exhibit T was without prejudice to Defendants filing a renewed statement seeking narrow redactions.

Effect of the order

Bold was ordered to consolidate the approved redactions from ECF Nos. 217 and 229 and file redacted versions of its opposition and Exhibits L, M, N, O, Q, R, and S on the public docket within seven days. The order also permitted Bold to file a renewed statement concerning Exhibits A and D, allowed Bold to file a renewed motion concerning Exhibit J, and allowed Defendants to file a renewed statement concerning Exhibit T. The order addressed access to filings and confidentiality; it did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion or the motion to preclude the damages theory.