Ascente Business Consulting, LLC v. DR myCommerce
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:18-cv-00138
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Ascente Business Consulting v. DR myCommerce, Judge Menendez modified the sealing motions, unsealed some documents, and kept others sealed.
Ascente Business Consulting, LLC, DR myCommerce, Inc., Digital River, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings.
What happened
Ascente Business Consulting, LLC and the defendants jointly asked the court to continue sealing certain documents filed in the case. They later abandoned requests to keep four docket entries sealed.
The court agreed that those four entries should be unsealed. After reviewing the remaining documents, it found that the parties had shown sufficient grounds to keep the other listed materials sealed as court records.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted the joint sealing motions as modified by the parties’ letter, directed the clerk to unseal four docket entries, and directed the clerk to keep the remaining listed entries under seal.
The detailed version
- Ascente Business Consulting, LLC v. DR myCommerce · No. 0:18-cv-00138
- Joan Ericksen
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
The parties jointly filed two motions seeking to keep certain court documents sealed under the District of Minnesota’s local rule governing sealed filings. In a later joint letter, they abandoned their requests to continue sealing docket entries 106, 123-5, 123-7, and 123-8. They provided additional reasons for keeping docket entries 99, 100, 102, 104, 123, 123-1, 123-2, 123-3, 123-4, and 130 sealed. The court also noted that it had previously determined docket entry 123-6 should remain sealed.
Ruling
After reviewing the documents and the standards governing the sealing of judicial records, the court concluded that the materials proposed for continued sealing met those standards. It therefore granted the joint motions regarding continued sealing as modified by the parties’ joint letter. The clerk was directed to unseal docket entries 106, 123-5, 123-7, and 123-8, and to keep docket entries 99, 100, 102, 104, 123, 123-1, 123-2, 123-3, 123-4, and 130 under seal. The order also reflects the court’s prior observation that docket entry 123-6 should remain sealed.
Judge and effect
Judge Katherine Menendez, a United States magistrate judge, issued the order. It affected the parties’ sealing requests and public access to the specified court filings: four docket entries were ordered unsealed, while the other listed entries remained sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.