Sparrow Fund Management LP v. Mimedx Group, Inc.

Background

Sparrow Fund Management LP filed a letter motion asking MiMedx Group, Inc. to produce certain documents in discovery. The motion was provisionally filed under seal under the parties’ protective order. Sparrow later filed a reply memorandum supporting the motion, also under seal.

Although Sparrow believed the allegedly confidential documents should eventually be unsealed and produced without redactions, the parties jointly asked the court to keep the filings sealed temporarily. They sought time for the court to decide the motion to compel and for further negotiations about removing the confidential designations under their protective order.

Court’s reasoning

The court distinguished discovery materials from judicial documents. It explained that materials exchanged during discovery generally do not carry the strong public-access presumption that applies to judicial documents. The court also relied on precedent stating that it is generally unfair to change confidentiality protections on which parties reasonably relied.

Ruling

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the parties’ joint request to file Sparrow’s motion to compel and reply brief under seal. The court requested that the clerk keep the documents filed at ECF Nos. 183 and 186 sealed, with access limited to the parties and the court. After the court rules on the motion to compel, Sparrow may seek a final court decision about whether the documents should remain sealed if the parties cannot reach an agreement under paragraph four of the protective order. This order addressed sealing only; the opinion does not decide the motion to compel itself.