Diesel S.p.A. v. Diesel Power Gear, LLC

Background

Defendant Diesel Power Gear, LLC made two requests to file portions of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on damages under seal. In the first request, it sought redactions from the parties’ joint statement of undisputed facts, Plaintiffs’ supporting brief, and a supporting declaration. In the second, it sought redactions from its own summary judgment motion and statement of undisputed facts. The proposed redactions concerned sales information that Defendant had designated confidential during discovery, including sales figures that Defendant said could help competitors design a business model and compete with it.

Legal standard

The court explained that the party seeking to seal court documents bears the burden of justification. It applied the common-law and First Amendment rights of public access to judicial documents. The analysis requires the court to determine whether the materials are judicial documents, assess the strength of the presumption of access, and then balance that presumption against competing interests, such as protecting sensitive commercial information. Any claimed harm must be described concretely and specifically. The court also noted that older information is generally less appropriate to seal unless the party explains why it remains sensitive.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon found that the materials submitted with the summary judgment motions were judicial documents entitled to a strong presumption of public access. The sales information was essential to the court’s consideration of the parties’ motions concerning an award of profits based on Defendant’s historical sales and profit information.

The court concluded that Defendant’s requests were not narrowly tailored or justified. It identified several reasons: the letter-motions did not specifically describe the business interests or harms at stake; some information dated back to 2013 and Defendant did not explain why it remained sensitive; the information was central to the damages dispute and public understanding of the court’s decision; and a discovery protective order or confidentiality designation did not by itself justify sealing judicial documents.

Accordingly, Defendant’s requests to redact were DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 84 and 93 and to unseal and make public the documents at ECF Nos. 86, 88, 90, 94, 96, 97, 100, and 104. The opinion addressed access to court filings, not the merits of the underlying damages motions.