The RDI Corporation v. Charter Communications, Inc..

Background

This order addressed Charter Communications, Inc.’s requests to keep portions of the record under seal. The materials included summary-judgment briefs, exhibits, and the court’s January 31, 2022 decision. Charter had identified three categories of information for continued sealing: (1) the specific rates Charter paid RDI for particular telemarketing campaigns; (2) the specific monthly numbers of calls RDI made to people on the do-not-call list, as shown in Charter’s audits; and (3) the specific period when RDI allegedly failed to comply with its contractual obligation to screen call lists.

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, sealing must be necessary to protect an important interest and narrowly limited to what is necessary. The court also considered how important each category of information was to the court’s exercise of its judicial duties.

Court’s analysis

The court denied the request to seal the specific compensation rates. Although those rates might not have been important to deciding the summary-judgment motions, the court stated that they would be relevant to RDI’s upcoming damages trial and could not remain confidential during that trial. Charter argued that competitors might exploit the rates, but the court found that Charter had not explained how competitors could use rates from campaigns conducted between May and August 2018 or what concrete harm would result.

The court also denied the request to seal the specific numbers of do-not-call-list calls. Charter acknowledged that the calls played a significant role in the litigation, and the court found a strong public interest in information about calls that affected the public. The court found Charter’s assertion that competitors could use the numbers to its detriment too general and unsupported. The court noted that other information about the calls, including that they occurred and their ratio to RDI’s total calls, was already public.

The court rejected the request to seal the specific period during which RDI allegedly failed to comply with its screening obligations. Contrary to Charter’s position, the court found that the information was material to the January 31 decision because RDI sought payment for May through August 2018 and Charter relied partly on the alleged noncompliance in opposing RDI’s summary-judgment motion. The court recognized a possible concern about claims based on calls made during the limitations period, but concluded that calls before March 1, 2018, were outside the four-year limitations period. It also noted that the publicly available pleadings already alleged that RDI made do-not-call-list calls between May and August 2018 and that Charter withheld payment for that reason.

The court denied Charter’s request to seal its letter and the March 1 order as well. The letter described the types of information Charter wanted sealed but did not itself contain the specific sensitive information. Because the court denied the sealing requests, it found no reason to keep either the letter or the order sealed.

Disposition

Charter’s motion to seal, docket number 118, was DENIED. Charter’s letter request to permanently seal portions of the record was also DENIED. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and unseal the docket entries and attachments listed in the conclusion, including Charter’s letter and attachments and the court’s January 31, 2022 decision at docket number 117. The court also directed the clerk to terminate RDI’s counsel of record from Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. and Lupkin PLLC. RDI had until April 1, 2022, to appear through new counsel. If it did not do so, the court stated that it would issue an order to show cause—an order requiring RDI to explain why its claims should not be dismissed.