Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. Exist, Inc.

Background

Body Glove IP Holdings, LP asked the court to continue allowing certain documents to remain under seal. The documents were submitted with Body Glove’s response to a summary-judgment motion filed by Exist, Inc. and Joshua Glickman.

Body Glove identified Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 6, along with portions of its response to the summary-judgment motion and its response to the defendants’ statement of facts. According to the application, the materials included information about Body Glove’s licensing guidelines, product-approval process, communications with licensees, and an agreement involving a nonparty. Body Glove said the materials had been designated confidential or attorneys’ eyes only under the court’s protective order.

Legal basis presented

Body Glove relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which allows protection for trade secrets and confidential commercial information. It also addressed the public and press’s qualified right to access court documents, arguing that protecting sensitive, competitive, and proprietary business information justified continued sealing. Body Glove stated that disclosure could give competitors an advantage and cause competitive harm. It requested only targeted sealing of the identified materials and said the request was unopposed.

Ruling

The court’s endorsement states: “APPLICATION GRANTED” and “SO ORDERED.” Judge John G. Koeltl therefore granted Body Glove’s application to continue sealing Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 6, the unredacted response to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, and the unredacted response to the defendants’ statement of facts. The order addressed access to confidential filings; it did not resolve the merits of the parties’ dispute or the pending summary-judgment motion.