Pantheon Properties, Inc. v. Houston

Background

On April 29, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to lift an attachment and separately asked for permission to file that motion under seal. They relied on a stipulated protective order and said the motion referred to a document that the plaintiffs had marked “Attorney Eyes Only.” The court denied that sealing request the same day because it was not adequately supported and directed the defendants to renew it with relevant case law and a narrower request.

On May 6, 2021, the defendants filed a second motion to seal. They again referred to the protective order and submitted a redacted version of the motion to lift the attachment. They sought to redact portions referring to documents marked “Confidential” or “Attorney Eyes Only” that the plaintiffs apparently believed contained the plaintiffs’ trade secrets.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the issue was not whether the parties’ protective order was proper. Instead, the issue was the First Amendment and common-law right of public access to judicial documents. The court cited the requirement that a court balance public access against competing interests before restricting access to court documents.

The defendants’ submission did not address the relevant standard or explain why large portions of their legal brief should be shielded from public view. The court therefore concluded that the renewed sealing request was insufficient.

Ruling

Judge Sarah Netburn denied the defendants’ motion at ECF No. 86 without prejudice. The court stated that the defendants may renew their application to seal the motion to lift the attachment, but a renewed application must address the relevant legal standard.