Peterson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-00606
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Peterson v. Experian, Judge Wright kept disputed filings sealed to protect private financial and confidential business information.
The order affects Peterson, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the identified court filings. The specified documents will remain sealed.
What happened
In Peterson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., the parties asked the court to decide whether documents supporting Experian’s summary-judgment motion should remain sealed. Some documents contained personal identifying information, account numbers, or possibly privileged information.
The parties agreed that three documents should stay sealed. They disagreed about an expert report and a declaration. Experian said those documents contained private credit information and confidential procedures for reporting credit information after bankruptcy. Peterson argued that some of the information was publicly available or commonly used by other credit-reporting agencies.
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the parties’ joint motion as follows: docket entries 91, 91-1, 91-2, 91-3, and 92 will remain sealed. The court found that protecting private financial information, potentially privileged information, and Experian’s confidential business procedures outweighed the public’s right to access those documents.
The detailed version
- Peterson v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 0:20-cv-00606
- David Doty
- Sept. 23, 2021
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continuing Sealing under Local Rule 5.6(d). The motion concerned documents filed under seal in support of Experian Information Solutions, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment: docket entries 91, 91-1, 91-2, 91-3, and 92.
Documents 91-1, 91-2, and 91-3
The parties agreed that docket entries 91-1, 91-2, and 91-3 should remain sealed because they contained personal identifying information, account numbers, or privileged information. After reviewing the documents, the court concluded that protecting private financial information and potentially privileged information outweighed the public’s right of access.
Documents 91 and 92
The parties disagreed about whether docket entries 91 and 92 should remain sealed. Experian described docket entry 91 as its expert report concerning its practices and procedures for reporting consumer credit information during and after bankruptcy. Experian argued that the report contained confidential business information, Peterson’s private credit information, specific credit accounts or tradelines, and information from documents designated confidential under the case’s protective order.
Peterson argued that Experian’s employee based the report on publicly available records and a class-action settlement. The court acknowledged that the report might contain some publicly available information but found that its focus on Experian’s confidential business procedures supported continued sealing.
Experian offered a similar basis for sealing docket entry 92. Peterson argued that the procedures discussed in the declaration were used by other credit-reporting agencies and were therefore widely known. The court concluded that the relevant question was whether Experian had a protectable interest in keeping its own procedures confidential, regardless of whether other agencies used similar procedures. On the facts available, the court found that Experian had that interest.
Ruling
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that the parties’ joint motion be granted as follows: docket entries 91, 91-1, 91-2, 91-3, and 92 will remain sealed. The order also noted that docket entries 91 and 92 were not relied upon by Judge David S. Doty in his separate order granting summary judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.