Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. Shenzhenshi Yishengda Dianzi Youxian…
Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. Shenzhenshi Yishengda Dianzi Youxian Gongsi
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-02382
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. John Doe Battery Manufacturer: Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part motions to continue sealing documents.
Amazon must file a redacted public version of the Wright deposition transcript, while the Clerk must keep that transcript sealed temporarily and later unseal the other specified documents unless a timely motion for further consideration is filed. The parties and the public are affected by the resulting access to these court filings.
What happened
In Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. John Doe Battery Manufacturer, the parties jointly asked the court to keep certain filings and deposition transcripts sealed because Amazon had designated information as confidential.
Amazon later withdrew or narrowed its requests. The court kept Charles Wright’s deposition transcript sealed but ordered Amazon to file a redacted public version and directed the Clerk to unseal the other listed documents after 28 days unless a timely motion was filed.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster ruled that the limited redactions protected confidentiality interests that outweighed the public’s interest in access. The joint motions were granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Berkley Regional Insurance Company v. Shenzhenshi Yishengda Dianzi Youxian… · No. 0:20-cv-02382
- Eric Tostrud
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
The court considered the parties’ joint motions to continue sealing several documents: Berkley’s memorandum supporting its motion to certify, Berkley’s memorandum opposing Amazon’s summary-judgment motion, and deposition transcripts of Charles Wright and Joseph Pekich. The parties said that Berkley’s filings and exhibits contained information Amazon had designated as confidential.
The court explained that judicial records are generally subject to a common-law right of public access. That right is not absolute, however, and the court must balance public access against legitimate confidentiality interests. The presumption of public access is particularly strong when documents relate to motions that could dispose of claims.
Court’s Analysis
The court had previously directed Amazon to explain specifically why its confidentiality designations were necessary and what harm would result from disclosure. Amazon then withdrew its request to keep four documents sealed: ECF Nos. 78, 78-3, 89, and 89-3. Amazon narrowed its request for the Wright Transcript to specified portions and submitted a proposed redacted version.
After reviewing the sealed transcript and proposed redactions, the court found that the redactions were sufficiently limited and that the need to protect confidential information outweighed the public’s interest in accessing that information.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ joint motions for continued sealing.
- The unredacted Charles Wright deposition transcript remains under seal, and the Clerk must keep ECF Nos. 78-2 and 89-2 sealed.
- Amazon must file a redacted public version of ECF Nos. 78-2 and 89-2, using the version attached to its letter, by November 4,
- 3. The Clerk must unseal ECF Nos. 78, 78-3, 89, and 89-3 28 days after the order unless a timely motion for further consideration is filed under Local Rule 5.6(d)(3).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.