TechGuru Consultants, Inc. v. Tech Guru, LLC

Background

TechGuru Consultants, Inc. and Alexander Litz moved for permission to file Exhibit A—the interim settlement agreement—as a sealed exhibit to their motion to reopen and set aside or vacate a judgment. They argued that the agreement referred to documents or information treated as confidential and that the agreement addressed continued settlement discussions and matters involving a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding. The plaintiffs stated that they had attempted to obtain the defendant’s consent, but the defendant had not responded.

Court’s reasoning

The court’s individual rules require a proposed sealed document to be filed under seal at the same time as the motion and electronically linked to the motion. The plaintiffs had not filed the proposed sealed document in the electronic filing system. The court also noted that the plaintiffs referred to information the court allegedly had designated confidential, but there was no protective order in the case. The court explained that a confidentiality agreement between litigants, or the parties’ consent, is generally not enough to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents. It directed the plaintiffs to explain why sealing was warranted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the motion to seal. The order required the plaintiffs to correct the filing deficiencies and provide the required explanation for sealing. It did not resolve the underlying dispute, the interim settlement agreement’s meaning, or the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen and set aside or vacate the judgment.