IBM Corporation v. Micro Focus, Inc.

Background

The court considered the parties’ requests to seal their joint letter concerning an unresolved discovery dispute, ECF No. 189, and Exhibits A–F and 1–4, ECF Nos. 189-1 to 189-10.

Legal standard

Judicial documents—filed materials relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process—are generally presumed to be accessible to the public under the common law and the First Amendment. To overcome that presumption, a court must find that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The presumption is generally lower for filings connected to discovery disputes than for materials submitted at trial or with motions that could end the case. Courts may seal or redact commercially sensitive information to protect confidential business and financial interests.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that the filings were judicial documents connected to resolving a discovery dispute. It found that the presumption of public access was overcome for Exhibits A–F and 1–4 because they were marked “Highly Confidential” and appeared to contain nonpublic, commercially sensitive information.

The court described Exhibits A, F, 1, 2, and 3 as deposition excerpts that appeared to discuss internal and confidential design and development processes. Exhibits B–E consisted of private email correspondence concerning confidential and competitive business and technical information. Exhibit 4 contained excerpts from interrogatories and responses that appeared to include nonpublic commercial and technical information.

The court reached a different conclusion about the joint letter. Although the letter referred to some confidential information from the exhibits, it largely contained legal arguments and case citations. The court found no basis to seal the entire letter and directed the parties to resubmit it with proposed redactions narrowly tailored to protect confidential or commercially sensitive information from the exhibits.

Disposition

The court granted in part the parties’ sealing requests. It directed the Clerk of Court to keep ECF Nos. 189-1 through 189-10 under seal and available only to selected parties. It directed the Clerk to keep ECF No. 189 temporarily under seal and available only to selected parties while the parties submit proposed redactions.

The court also directed the parties to notify it by joint letter when any protective-order review period ends if the documents were designated highly confidential only through that period. If the parties seek to keep those documents sealed afterward, their letter must state the basis for doing so.