Shapco Printing, Inc. v. MKM Importers, Inc.
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:21-cv-02155
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Shapco Printing v. MKM Importers, Judge Wright denied MKM’s request to keep case documents sealed and ordered them unsealed.
MKM Importers, Inc., whose sealing request was denied, and the public, which was granted access to the Purchase Agreement and memorandum filed at Docket Entries 11 and 12.
What happened
In Shapco Printing, Inc. v. MKM Importers, Inc., MKM asked to keep a purchase agreement and parts of its motion-to-dismiss memorandum under seal. MKM said the documents contained confidential business terms, and the request was unopposed.
The court said filed court records generally must be available to the public unless confidentiality interests outweigh public access. It found that the purchase agreement appeared largely to be a standard order form and that MKM had not shown enough harm from disclosure, especially because pricing information already appeared in the public memorandum.
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied MKM’s motion for leave to file under seal and ordered Docket Entries 11 and 12 unsealed under the court’s procedures.
The detailed version
- Shapco Printing, Inc. v. MKM Importers, Inc. · No. 0:21-cv-02155
- Paul Magnuson
- Oct. 18, 2021
Background
MKM Importers, Inc. filed an unopposed motion asking permission to keep documents under seal under District of Minnesota Local Rule 5.6(d). The documents were a Purchase Agreement and MKM’s memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss Count Two of Shapco Printing, Inc.’s complaint, along with requests for relief. MKM had filed redacted public versions of both documents.
MKM argued that the Purchase Agreement contained confidential business terms whose disclosure could harm its competitive position. MKM also said that the memorandum was redacted only where it referred to the Purchase Agreement. The opinion notes that MKM referred to a proposed protective order, but no such order had been filed with the court.
Legal standard
The court explained that the public has a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. That right is not absolute, so the court must balance the public’s interest in access against the interests served by keeping information confidential. The court concluded that a heightened burden applies when a party seeks to seal documents filed with a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss.
Analysis
The court found that most of the Purchase Agreement had been redacted, but MKM had provided only a general assertion that the agreement contained confidential business terms. Based on its review, the court said the agreement appeared to be a standard order form containing purchaser information, price, standard terms, and information about what was purchased. Apart from pricing, the court could not discern sensitive information. The court also noted that MKM had not redacted pricing information from the memorandum’s public version.
The court further emphasized that MKM relied on the Purchase Agreement to ask the court to dismiss Shapco’s fraud, rescission, and consequential-damages claims. Because the agreement was important to a dispositive motion, the public had an interest in seeing the basis for the court’s decision and the evidence considered. The court found that MKM had not met the heightened burden required to keep the Purchase Agreement or the portions of the memorandum discussing it under seal.
Order
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied MKM’s unopposed Motion for Leave to File Underseal, Docket 15. The order also directed that Docket Entries 11 and 12 be unsealed according to Local Rule 5.6(d). This order addressed sealing and public access; it did not decide the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.