Agropur, Inc. v. Scoular Company, The
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:17-cv-01247
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Agropur, Inc. v. The Scoular Company, Judge Rau granted Scoular’s request to keep a document sealed because settlement meant it would not support a court decision.
The Scoular Company’s document remained sealed, and the public’s access to that document was limited.
What happened
In Agropur, Inc. v. The Scoular Company, Scoular asked the court to reconsider and grant its request to keep one document sealed. The document had been submitted with Scoular’s motion for partial summary judgment.
The parties had recently agreed to settle the case, so the court said it would not decide the summary-judgment motion. The sealed document therefore would not be used in a court decision, limiting the public’s interest in accessing it.
The court granted Scoular’s motion for further consideration of sealing. The order was signed by Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge.
The detailed version
- Agropur, Inc. v. Scoular Company, The · No. 0:17-cv-01247
- Joan Ericksen
- Aug. 20, 2018
Background
The Scoular Company moved for further consideration of sealing one document, docket entry 75. Scoular had submitted that document in connection with its motion for partial summary judgment. The parties had recently agreed to settle the case.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that access is not absolute. Courts weigh the public’s interest in access against the interests supporting confidentiality. The public-access interest is more limited for documents that are not relevant to, or used in, resolving the merits of a case.
Ruling
Because the parties had agreed to settle, the court stated that it would not adjudicate Scoular’s motion for partial summary judgment. The sealed document would therefore not be used in a judicial decision. The court granted Defendant The Scoular Company’s Motion for Further Consideration of Sealing [Doc. No. 101].
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.