Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. v. Allied World National Assurance Company
- Ann Montgomery
- 0:17-cv-00776
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. v. Allied World National Assurance Company, Judge Leung granted in part and denied in part a motion to keep court documents sealed.
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. and Allied World National Assurance Company, whose court filings were partly kept under seal and partly made public; the ruling also affects public access to those judicial records.
What happened
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. and Allied World National Assurance Company jointly asked the District of Minnesota to keep documents related to their summary-judgment motions sealed. They disagreed about whether some documents should remain sealed because they had been marked confidential or sealed in related proceedings.
The court said public access to court records is presumed, but confidentiality interests may justify sealing. It kept sealed documents filed under seal in related litigation and documents containing confidentiality clauses or proprietary information. It also kept some documents sealed after reviewing them, but ordered other documents unsealed because the need for confidentiality was not apparent.
Judge Tony N. Leung granted in part and denied in part the joint motion. The clerk was directed to keep the documents listed in the order sealed and to immediately unseal the other listed documents.
The detailed version
- Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. v. Allied World National Assurance Company · No. 0:17-cv-00776
- Ann Montgomery
- May 16, 2019
Background
The parties filed a joint motion under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6 concerning continued sealing of documents connected to their motions for summary judgment. The court had previously struck an earlier version of the motion because the parties had not adequately explained why the documents deserved protection from public filing. The parties filed a revised motion on May 10, 2019.
Tile Shop argued that various documents should remain sealed because they had been filed under seal in related litigation, had been designated confidential by a third party, had been designated confidential in this litigation or related litigation, contained confidentiality clauses, or contained proprietary information. Allied World argued that the documents should be unsealed.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial records carry a common-law presumption of public access because public access supports confidence in the judiciary. That presumption is not absolute, however, and the court must balance public access against the interest in confidentiality. Local Rule 5.6 is intended to reduce the amount of information kept under seal.
The court found sufficient grounds to seal documents that had been filed under seal in related litigation, documents identified as containing confidentiality clauses, and documents identified as containing proprietary information. But merely labeling a document confidential under a protective order or party agreement was not enough. The parties had to identify what information in those documents justified confidential treatment.
After reviewing each document that Tile Shop sought to seal based on a confidentiality designation, the court found that some warranted continued sealing. For other documents, the need for continued sealing was not apparent from the documents themselves.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing Regarding Allied World National Assurance Company’s and Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.’s Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 248.
The clerk was directed to keep these documents sealed: ECF Nos. 73, 78, 82, 103, 107, 146, 154, 156, 161, 165, 167, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194, 208, 213, 228, 229, and 236.
The clerk was directed to unseal immediately these documents: ECF Nos. 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 174, 179, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 211, 212, 214, 215, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, and 235.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.