Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:16-cv-01220
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.: Judge Menendez granted in part and denied in part the sealing motion, unsealing some documents and keeping others sealed with redactions.
The plaintiffs and defendants had to file or maintain specified documents in unsealed or redacted form. The order also affected the public’s access to filings connected to the expert-evidence dispute.
What happened
In Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., the parties asked the court to decide which documents connected to defendants’ request to exclude the plaintiffs’ damages experts should remain sealed. The parties agreed that several documents could be unsealed.
The court said the documents were judicial records because the expert-evidence dispute was closely connected to defendants’ request for summary judgment. That meant defendants had to show compelling reasons for continued secrecy. The court found that some redactions protected confidential sales, pricing, marketing, and consumer-research information, but that many others did not show a risk of competitive harm.
Judge Menendez granted in part and denied in part the joint motion. She ordered several agreed documents, the defendants’ supporting memorandum, and the defendants’ reply memorandum unsealed. She kept three expert-related filings and the plaintiffs’ opposition under seal while requiring redacted versions to be filed.
The detailed version
- Hudock v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. · No. 0:16-cv-01220
- John Tunheim
- June 2, 2020
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The motion concerned documents filed under temporary seal in connection with defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of plaintiffs’ damages experts, Steven Gaskin and Colin Weir.
The parties agreed that several documents should be unsealed. The court directed the Clerk of Court to unseal the listed docket entries containing Ms. Wilkinson’s declarations and deposition excerpts from Gaskin, Weir, Ronald Wilcox, and Keith Ugone.
Legal standard
The court explained that documents filed in connection with a motion may be “judicial records,” meaning records to which the public generally has a right of access. For judicial records, the party seeking secrecy must show a compelling reason to overcome that right. For materials that are not judicial records, a less demanding “good cause” standard may apply under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
The court applied the compelling-reason standard because defendants’ motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ damages experts was closely connected to defendants’ summary-judgment arguments. Defendants argued that excluding the experts’ evidence could leave plaintiffs without admissible damages evidence and could support judgment against plaintiffs. The court therefore concluded that the documents were more than marginally related to the case’s merits.
Rulings on the remaining documents
- Defendants’ supporting memorandum, ECF 375: The court ordered the memorandum unsealed in its entirety. It found that many redactions concerned the experts’ relationship, alleged analytical flaws, and limitations in their reports, rather than confidential business information. It also found no compelling reason to keep redacted discussions of market data, historical advertising, sales and pricing information, or Dr. Keith Ugone’s opinions under seal. - Dr. Ronald Wilcox’s declaration and exhibits, ECF 377-2: The court directed that the filing remain under seal, while requiring defendants to refile it in the proposed redacted form. The court found that the redactions protected information in which defendants had a legitimate competitive interest. - Colin Weir’s declaration and exhibits, ECF 377-3: The court directed that the filing remain under seal and required defendants to refile it in the proposed redacted form. The court found that two tables containing analysis based on sales data could properly remain redacted. - Dr. Keith Ugone’s declaration and exhibits, ECF 377-5: The court directed that the filing remain under seal and required defendants to refile it in the proposed redacted form. The proposed redactions covered consumer research and survey results, pricing and sales data, and similar information that could create competitive harm if disclosed. - Plaintiffs’ opposition memorandum: The court directed that the filing remain under seal but required plaintiffs to refile a version with most of the redactions removed. One sentence referring to Table 1 in Weir’s declaration could remain redacted because the court had already found that table eligible for redaction. - Defendants’ reply memorandum, ECF 390: The court ordered the document unsealed. It found that the challenged redactions concerned expert analysis, deposition references, individual plaintiffs’ buying decisions, and related argument—not confidential marketing strategies, pricing decisions, sales data, consumer research, or customer-complaint practices.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. The order addressed public access to filings and confidentiality; it did not decide defendants’ motion to exclude the experts or the underlying claims. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.