Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. Tricam Industries, Inc.
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:20-cv-02497
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Little Giant Ladder v. Tricam, Judge Wright granted joint sealing motions, unsealing some docket entries while keeping others sealed.
Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC and Tricam Industries, Inc.; the order also affects public access to the specified court filings and court order.
What happened
Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. Tricam Industries, Inc. concerned the parties’ joint requests about whether documents and a court order should remain sealed. The parties agreed that some docket entries should be made public and that others contained sensitive competitive information.
The court found that the need to protect the information outweighed the public’s right of access. It ordered five docket entries unsealed, kept the listed documents and the original September 23, 2022 order sealed, and ordered a redacted version of that order unsealed.
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the joint motions regarding continued sealing. She emphasized that the decision was based on filings connected to a non-dispositive motion and would not decide whether the information should remain sealed if later filed with dispositive motions.
The detailed version
- Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. Tricam Industries, Inc. · No. 0:20-cv-02497
- Katherine Menendez
- Nov. 7, 2022
Background
The court considered the parties’ Joint Motions Regarding Continued Sealing under Local Rule 5.6(d). The motions concerned documents filed with Little Giant’s motion to compel and motion to modify the scheduling order, as well as the continued sealing of the court’s September 23, 2022 order.
The parties agreed that Docket Entries 97, 97-2, 97-12, 104, and 104-5 should be unsealed. They agreed that Docket Entries 94, 97-1, 97-3, 97-4, 97-5, 97-6, 97-7, 97-8, 97-9, 97-10, 97-11, 101, 104-1, 104-2, 104-3, 104-4, and 105 should remain sealed because they allegedly contained Tricam’s highly sensitive competitive financial, development, design, or manufacturing information. Tricam also argued that the unredacted version of the September 23, 2022 order should remain sealed to the extent it referred to information that should remain sealed. Little Giant did not object to Tricam’s proposed redactions and agreed that Docket Entry 124, the redacted version of the order, should be unsealed.
Court’s reasoning
After reviewing the documents and the parties’ representations, the court concluded that the need to keep the specified information under seal outweighed the public’s right of access. The court also stated that, because the documents and order were filed in connection with a non-dispositive motion, its decision did not determine whether the information would remain sealed if it were later filed and considered in connection with dispositive motions. The court expected the parties to conduct a thorough discussion before filing any future joint motion about continued sealing.
Ruling
Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted the parties’ Joint Motions Regarding Continued Sealing. The court ordered Docket Entries 97, 97-2, 97-12, 104, and 104-5 unsealed in accordance with the Local Rules. It ordered Docket Entries 94, 97-1, 97-3, 97-4, 97-5, 97-6, 97-7, 97-8, 97-9, 97-10, 97-11, 101, 104-1, 104-2, 104-3, 104-4, 105, and 120 to remain sealed. It also ordered Docket Entry 124, the redacted version of the September 23, 2022 order, unsealed in accordance with the Local Rules.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.