Trumbell et al v. NRRM, LLC et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, defendants' motion to seal case 8 is denied. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/2/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW TRUMBELL, KEVIN AMATO, )
CRAIG MEHR, and NICK DAVIS, individually )
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
NRRM, LLC, d/b/a STOPREPAIRBILLS.COM )
and VEHICLE PROCESSING CENTER, f/k/a )
NATIONAL DEALERS WARRANTY, INC.,
)
RUDGE GILMAN, NICHOLAS HAMILTON, )
MARK TRAVIS, and STEVE PROETZ,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 15 C 10923

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action was voluntarily dismissed on December 15, 2015, presumably based on this
Court's brief December 8, 2015 sua sponte memorandum order that had pointed to "the possibly
problematic nature of this action as to three of [the] four plaintiffs" -- a concern stemming from
the action's questionable invocation of venue as to those plaintiffs. Now, more than a year later,
defense counsel have moved to have the now-closed case file sealed in its entirety, asserting a
claimed "reputational injury" by reason of defendants having been sued for alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Caselaw from our Court of Appeals has consistently rejected such efforts to depart from
the principle that federal litigation is open to public view, limiting any exception to that principle
to extraordinary circumstances calling for secrecy (see, e.g., Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d
562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000) and a host of cases cited there). Plaintiffs' memorandum in

opposition to the current motion (Dkt. No. 11), and indeed defendants' own motion and their
counsel's supporting memorandum, confirm this Court's view that this is not such an
extraordinary case.
Among other deficiencies in their motion, here defense counsel offer no contention that
the file discloses any trade secret, confidential information, privileged material or any other
sensitive and intrinsically private material that could justify a sealed record (see, e.g., GEA
Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 419-20 (7th Cir. 2014) and cases cited there).
Accordingly defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 8) is denied.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 2, 2017

-2-