Condair Group AG v. Dri-Steem Corporation

Background

The parties filed two joint motions under the District of Minnesota’s rule governing documents filed under seal. One motion concerned sealed documents connected to Dri-Steem’s motion to strike and exclude David Haas’s opinions about lost profits for replacement parts. The other concerned sealed documents connected to Dri-Steem’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.

The court began with the general public right to inspect and copy judicial records. The parties agreed that Docket Entries 137, 144, 159, 159-2, 159-5, 172, 172-7, 172-9, 172-10, 172-11, 172-12, 172-14, 172-15, and 182 should be unsealed.

Sealing and Redactions

The parties agreed, or did not object, to continued sealing of documents containing nonpublic and confidential business or product-development information, confidential settlement communications, testimony describing confidential information, and expert reports or other materials designated confidential under the protective order.

The court concluded that the need to protect the information outweighed the public’s right of access for Docket Entries 135, 137-1, 137-4, 137-5, 137-6, 137-7, 143, 144-1 through 144-8, 150, 159-6 through 159-10, 159-12 through 159-18, 172-8, 181, and 186. Those documents were ordered to remain sealed. The court noted that this decision would not necessarily determine whether the information could remain sealed later if it were filed and considered in connection with future dispositive motions, meaning motions that could resolve claims or the case.

The court found that some expert reports contained information that did not require sealing. It therefore ordered the parties to file redacted versions of Docket Entries 159-1, 159-3, 159-4, 159-11, 172-4, and 182-2 by April 5, 2023. It also ordered a redacted version of Docket Entry 171, Plaintiff’s opposition to Dri-Steem’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, by that date. The court found that redacting that brief was practicable and emphasized that the public’s right of access was stronger because the brief was filed in connection with a potentially case-dispositive motion.

The court also addressed docket-entry discrepancies. The parties referred to Docket Entry 137-8, but the court stated that no such entry appeared on the record and that the intended document appeared to be Docket Entry 137-7. The court did not order a new redacted version of Docket Entry 150 because it determined that the relevant redacted versions had already been filed at Docket Entries 134 and 155.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright ordered that the parties’ Joint Motions for Continued Sealing, Docket Entries 178 and 197, were granted as follows: the specified docket entries were unsealed; the specified confidential documents remained sealed; and Docket Entries 159-1, 159-3, 159-4, 159-11, 171, 172-4, and 182-2 remained sealed while the parties were required to file redacted versions by April 5, 2023.