TechGuru Consultants, Inc. v. Tech Guru, LLC

Background

This trademark dispute concerns the mark “TECHGURU,” used with computer installation and repair services. The action was dismissed with prejudice on April 4, 2019, under the parties’ stipulation of voluntary dismissal. About a year later, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to reopen the case and set aside or vacate the judgment.

The plaintiffs then moved to file an Interim Settlement Agreement under seal as an exhibit to that motion. The court had previously denied an earlier sealing request without prejudice because the plaintiffs had not provided the proposed sealed document or explained why sealing was justified. The court also noted that no protective order had been entered and that the plaintiffs had incorrectly claimed otherwise.

The Sealing Standard

The court applied the public-access test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Under that test, a judicial document is entitled to a presumption of public access when it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court then weighs the strength of that presumption against competing interests that could justify sealing.

The court found that the settlement agreement was plainly a judicial document because its terms would partly determine the court’s ruling on the motion to reopen. Because the agreement was likely to directly affect that ruling, the presumption of public access was significant.

Reasons for Denying Sealing

The plaintiffs argued that the agreement contained highly proprietary information about the parties’ willingness to dismiss the case and that their privacy interests outweighed public access. The court rejected those reasons. It found that the agreement contained nothing proprietary and was almost entirely boilerplate. The parties’ decision to resolve litigation was not, by itself, proprietary information.

The court also found that the plaintiffs did not identify the privacy interests at stake or explain how public disclosure would harm them. In addition, the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen had placed the agreement’s terms and the parties’ willingness to dismiss the case directly before the court.

The agreement contained a confidentiality provision, but the court held that an agreement to keep terms confidential does not overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents. The provision also allowed disclosure when required by law or court order, or when needed to enforce rights or obligations under the agreement.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file the agreement under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 79 and place the agreement at Docket No. 79-1 on the public docket. This order addressed the sealing request; the opinion does not state that it decided the separate motion to reopen.