Suppressed v. Suppressed
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable John W. Darrah on 12/8/2016. Mailed notice. (pk, )
Case: 1:16-cv-04363 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/08/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:567
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JASON SHORE and COINABUL, LLC,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
Case
No. l6-cv-4363
)
)
JOHNSON & BELL, LTD,
Defendant.
Judge John W. Darrah
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AI\D ORDER
On
April 15,2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, and Motion to Temporarily Seal. The Motion to Temporarily Seal was granted on
April 2l ,2016. On May 26,2016, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims without prejudice to
refiling the claims in arbitration. Plaintiffs have now filed a Motion to Unseal the case. For
the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal is granted.
BACKGROUNI)
On
April 15,2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order,
and Motion to Temporarily Seal. The Complaint alleged that Defendant's information-
technology infrastructure was compromised by three instances of a "JBoss Vulnerability" and
that Plaintiffs' confidential information was exposed because of those vulnerabilities. The
Motion to Temporarily Seal stated that the documents initiating the case should be filed under
seal because they "reveal[ed], in explicit detail, where and how [Defendant] has left its clients'
confidential information unsecured and unprotected" and left Plaintiffs under "a heightened risk
of . . . injuries." The Motion to Temporarily Seal was granted on April 21,2016. On
Case: 1:16-cv-04363 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/08/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:568
May 4,2016, counsel for Defendant represented that the "JBoss Vulnerability" had been fixed;
and Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that on the same day. On May 26,2016, Plaintiffs dismissed
their claims without prejudice to refiling the claims in arbitration.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of
Civil
Procedure 26(c) allows court materials to be sealed under certain
circumstances. Generally, the record of ajudicial proceeding is public, and there is a strong
presumption that records should be public. Jessup v. Luther,277 F.3d926,927 (7th Cir. 2002).
Judicial records may be sealed when there is a compelling interest in security, such as "trade
secrets, the identity of informers, and the privacy of
children." Id. at 928. The interest in
secrecy is weighed against the public interest on a case-by-case basis. 1d
ANALYSIS
In this case, the party seeking to unseal the documents is the party that initially sought
protection. Plaintiffs argue that, since the security vulnerabilities have been fixed, this case
should now be made public. After a protective order has been entered, the party seeking to
protect documents oomust continue to show good cause for confidentiality when challenged."
In re: Bank One Securities Litig. First Chi. Shareholder Claims,222 F.R.D.582, 586
(N.D.111.2004). The party seeking to keep records sealed must show that disclosure
a
will result in
o'clearly defined and serious injury" by pointing to "specific demonstrations of fact."
Glob. Material Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co.,l33 F. Supp. 3d 1079,1084 (N.D. Ill.
2015) (citing
Inre: Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig.,08 CV 2364,2009WL1766776,at*1,*4
(N.D.lll. lune 23,2009). "lf there
resolved in favor of disclosure
is any doubt as to whether the material should be sealed,
." In re: Bank One,222
F.R.D. at 586.
it is
Case: 1:16-cv-04363 Document #: 56 Filed: 12/08/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:569
Defendant argues that this case should remain under seal as the parties have agreed to
arbitrate a dispute, or at least until such time that a decision is made as to whether the case will
go to arbitration or proceed in court, and cites Walker v. Gore, No. l:08-CV-0549-DFH-WTL,
2008 WL 4649091, at
*l
(S.D. Ind. Oct.20,2008). ln Wallrer, the plaintiffs brought the lawsuit
after agreeing to arbitration. Walker, 2008 WL 4649091, at *1. The Wolker defendants argued
that they had agreed to arbitration in order to maintain confidentiality.
Id.
Here, arbitration did
not arise until after Plaintiffs filed the present suit.
As the Seventh Circuit has stated, "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject of the
case . . . be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition
that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell,
220 F.3d 562,567 (7th Cir.
2000). Defendant
has not presented the type
of clearly defined and
serious injury necessary to outweigh the presumption of public access.' Nor has Defendant
argued that there is a compelling interest in security.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal the case is granted.
Date:
December 8.2016
HN W. DARRAH
nited States District Court Judge
I
Defendant argues that unsealing the case would lead to a record solely consisting of
Plaintiffs' "self-serving positions" in the Complaint. However, this is incorrect as Defendant's
motion to dismiss would also be in the record. Additionally, Defendant does not argue that
Plaintiffs' allegations are a clearly defined and serious injury.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?