JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman

Background

The court considered Defendant Hayley Paige Gutman’s request to partially seal the transcript of the February 4, 2021, preliminary-injunction hearing. Plaintiff JLM Couture, Inc. opposed the request.

Gutman sought redactions covering information about third-party agreements, communications, or other information designated “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order. She also asserted that she had an obligation to keep third-party information confidential.

Access to the Transcript

The court explained that judicial records carry a presumption of public access under both the common-law right of access and the First Amendment right of access. The strength of that presumption depends on the role the material played in the court’s exercise of its authority and the value of public access to monitoring the federal courts.

The court determined that the preliminary-injunction hearing transcript was indisputably a judicial document because the court would use the hearing testimony and the rest of the evidentiary record to determine the parties’ substantive legal rights. The testimony Gutman sought to seal concerned her alleged commercial use of the names and marks at issue. Whether she had used her name in commerce was relevant to the likelihood that JLM Couture would succeed on its breach-of-contract and trademark-infringement claims. The testimony therefore informed the court’s exercise of its authority and was entitled to a strong presumption of public access.

Privacy Interests and Protective Order

The court weighed that presumption against the privacy interests asserted by Gutman and any third parties. The protective order allowed the parties to challenge confidentiality designations and seek a ruling from the court. It also stated that the order did not prevent disclosure when disclosure was otherwise required by law.

The court noted that it had received no communication from the third parties who allegedly supplied the confidential information. Gutman did not identify with particularity the nature or scope of any separate confidentiality obligation. Her general assertion that she had an obligation to keep third-party information confidential did not give the court enough information to evaluate the third parties’ privacy interests, determine whether sealing was essential to protect a higher value, or determine whether the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.

Disposition

The court denied Gutman’s request to redact portions of the preliminary-injunction hearing transcript. It ordered that the transcript be unsealed in its entirety and made available in accordance with standard Judicial Conference policies and procedures. The order resolved docket entry number 101.