Barclay v. iFit Health & Fitness Inc.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:19-cv-02970
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Barclay v. iFit Health & Fitness Inc., Judge Foster granted the parties’ motion to keep confidential sales and customer data under seal.
The parties, whose exhibit remains sealed, and members of the public seeking access to that exhibit are affected.
What was alleged
The complaint alleges that NordicTrack falsely advertised the continuous horsepower (CHP) ratings of its treadmills, claiming the machines cannot actually reach or maintain those advertised power levels when plugged into a standard 120-volt residential outlet. The complaint asserts claims for violations of consumer protection and false advertising laws, breach of express and implied warranties, and negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiff claims she purchased a NordicTrack treadmill for over $500 in June 2019 in reliance on the advertised 2.6 CHP rating, and alleges she and other class members overpaid as a result of the misrepresentations.
What happened
In Barclay v. iFit Health & Fitness Inc., the parties asked the court to keep sealed an exhibit containing confidential sales and customer data. The exhibit had been filed in connection with the plaintiffs’ request to certify a class.
The court explained that judicial records are generally available to the public, but courts may protect legitimate confidential interests. The class-certification motion had previously been denied without prejudice, so the exhibit had not been used in deciding the case.
Judge Dulce J. Foster found good cause to maintain confidentiality and ruled that the parties’ interests outweighed the public interest in disclosure. She granted the joint sealing motion and directed the clerk to keep the exhibit under seal.
The detailed version
- Barclay v. iFit Health & Fitness Inc. · No. 0:19-cv-02970
- Eric Tostrud
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs had filed a motion to certify a class and appoint class representatives and class counsel. In opposition, the defendants filed Exhibit 214 under seal and publicly filed a redacted version. The parties jointly asked the court to continue sealing the exhibit because its redacted portions contained confidential sales and customer data.
The exhibit was filed in connection with the class-certification motion. On April 18, 2024, District Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied that motion without prejudice pending settlement. He stated that, if the matter did not settle, the parties could refile their papers in the same form and content.
Legal Standard
The court explained that parties may seal documents in a civil case only as authorized by statute or rule, or with the court’s permission. Judicial records carry a common-law right of public access, but that right is not absolute. The court must balance the public’s interest in access against legitimate interests in keeping information confidential. The weight given to public access depends in part on the material’s role in the court’s exercise of its constitutional judicial power and its value to those monitoring the federal courts.
Court’s Analysis
Because the class-certification motion had been denied without prejudice and could be refiled if necessary, the court determined that Exhibit 214 had not played a role in the district judge’s exercise of judicial power. The court also found good cause to keep the exhibit sealed because it contained sensitive proprietary information, including confidential sales and customer data. It concluded that the parties’ legitimate confidentiality interests outweighed the public interest in unsealing the exhibit.
Disposition
Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing of Documents. The order directs the clerk to keep ECF No. 214 under seal. The order does not change the public filing of the redacted version.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.