Sure Fit Home Products, LLC v. Maytex Mills Inc.

Background

Defendant Maytex Mills Inc. moved for permission to file three documents—Exhibits 88, 89, and 90 to its first set of requests for admission to plaintiffs Sure Fit Home Products, LLC and SF Home Décor, LLC—under seal. Maytex said the plaintiffs’ counsel had asserted during a discovery conference that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, had been produced inadvertently, and were being clawed back. The plaintiffs had also designated the documents “Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

Maytex disputed whether the documents were privileged or protected work product. It said the parties were separately asking the court to decide that issue. Maytex argued that the documents should nevertheless be sealed so the court could determine the plaintiffs’ claims while protecting information that might be privileged. The filing also stated that the plaintiffs declined to make the sealing application themselves.

Ruling

The court denied Maytex’s motion to seal the documents in light of the court’s ruling at Docket 189. The opinion does not describe the substance of that earlier ruling or explain why it required denial of the sealing motion. The order states only: “In light of the Court’s ruling (Docket # 189), the motion to seal these documents is denied.”