Rubik's Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-06559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rubik’s Brand v. Flambeau, Judge Parker denied without prejudice requests to redact and seal summary-judgment documents.
The parties’ requests to redact or seal documents were denied without prejudice, while the public’s access to documents filed in connection with the summary-judgment proceedings was protected. The parties could submit narrower requests by February 16, 2021.
What happened
Rubik’s Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc. involved the parties’ requests to redact or seal documents filed in connection with motions for summary judgment and a related motion to strike.
The court said those filings were judicial documents covered by a strong presumption of public access. Confidentiality designations, claimed competitive harm, attorney work product, and information about sales trends or product quality did not justify most of the proposed redactions.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied without prejudice the parties’ requests to redact and seal the documents. The parties could file narrower requests by February 16, 2021; otherwise, the clerk would be directed to unseal the documents.
The detailed version
- Rubik's Brand Limited v. Flambeau, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-06559
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 1, 2021
Background
The court considered the parties’ various motions to file redacted documents connected to their positions on summary judgment, along with defendants’ related motion to strike. The documents were submitted for the court’s consideration in deciding those matters.
Public-access standard
The court explained that the public generally has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Because documents submitted with summary-judgment motions are judicial documents, they carry a strong presumption of public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment standard, sealing is permitted only when specific findings show that closure is essential to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
The court rejected the argument that designating information as confidential under the parties’ discovery protective order was enough to satisfy this higher standard. It also stated that attorney work-product protection was waived when a party voluntarily disclosed the material, and neither party claimed that the disclosures were accidental. The court further found that the parties’ interests in keeping sales trends and product-quality information private did not outweigh the presumption of disclosure.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker found that the parties had greatly over-designated documents for redaction and sealing. The court denied without prejudice the various motions to seal and the requests to redact portions of the documents. The parties were allowed to file much narrower requests by February 16, 2021. If they did not do so, the clerk would be directed to unseal the documents. The court identified ECF No. 164, Exhibit 203, as an example of a document that could appropriately be sealed and asked the clerk to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 155, 161, 167, 173, 179, and 184.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.