The United States of America v. Carahsoft Technology Corp.

Filing 85

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 81 MOTION to Seal Eleventh Joint Status Report [ECF No. 80]; denying 82 MOTION for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson on 11/21/2024. (bw5s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP.,

*

Defendant.

*

Civil Case No. 1:23-cv-01999-RDB

*
*******
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises from a petition by the government to direct Carahsoft Technology
Corporation (“Carahsoft”) to comply with a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”). (ECF Nos. 1,
3). Currently pending before the Court is (1) Carahsoft’s Motion to Seal the parties’ Eleventh Joint
Status Report (ECF No. 81); and (2) Carahsoft’s Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 82). The
Court has considered the Motions, the government’s Opposition thereto (ECF No. 83), and
Carahsoft’s Reply (ECF No. 84). No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For
the reasons set forth herein, Carahsoft’s Motion to Seal the Eleventh Joint Status Report will be
GRANTED and Carahsoft’s Motion for Protective Order will be DENIED.
I.

Carahsoft’s Motion for Protective Order

Carahsoft moves for a protective order to seal all joint status reports going forward because
the reports “are bound to contain highly confidential and sensitive information related to Carahsoft
and its business partners as well as the substance of the ongoing investigation.” (ECF No. 82 at
4).1 As detailed in Carahsoft’s filings and reflected in the public docket, this Court has sealed Joint

1

When the Court cites to a particular page number or range, the Court is referring to the page numbers located in the
electronic filing stamps provided at the top of each electronically filed document.

Status Reports at ECF Nos. 28, 31, 56, 62, and 77. The government has opposed Carahsoft’s
previous Motions to Seal, and similarly opposes the instant Motion for Protective Order. (ECF No.
83). Carahsoft contends that the government’s continual objections to requests to shield what is
essentially the same information have caused it to incur significant undue burden and expense, and
that a protective order will “alleviate the need for this Court to continually address Carahsoft’s
legitimate privacy concerns.” (ECF No. 82 at 4). While that may be so, Fourth Circuit precedent
clearly dictates the requisite procedure for sealing court filings. A district court may only “seal
documents if the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests,” and “the
‘presumption’ in such cases favors public access.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302
(4th Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly:
Before a district court may seal any court documents…it must (1) provide public
notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable opportunity to
object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3)
provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the
documents and for rejecting the alternatives.
Id. (first citing Knight, 743 F.2d at 235-36; then citing Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855
F.2d 178, 181 (4th Cir. 1988)). This procedure “must be followed when a district court seals
judicial records or documents.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Stone, 855 F.2d at 179-80, 182). A
motion to seal must also comply with Local Rule 105.11, which provides:
Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions, exhibits, or other documents
to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by
specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation why
alternatives to sealing would not provide sufficient protection. The Court will not
rule upon the motion until at least fourteen (14) days after it is entered on the public
docket to permit the filing of objections by interested parties. Materials that are the
subject of the motion shall remain temporarily sealed pending a ruling by the Court.
If the motion is denied, the party making the filing will be given an opportunity to
withdraw the materials. Upon termination of the action, sealed materials will be
disposed of in accordance with L.R. 113.
2

Although Carahsoft cites several cases for the proposition that “the Fourth Circuit has
consistently found that issuing a protective order is a suitable method to prevent disclosure of
confidential information[,]” none use a protective order as a means to preemptively seal court
documents before they are filed. (ECF No. 82 at 2).2 Further, in Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine,
the Fourth Circuit found it necessary to apply the Knight framework to determine whether
documents produced under a protective order should be sealed once they were attached to a public
court filing. 846 F.2d 249, 252-54 (4th Cir. 1988) (“[W]e question whether the [Protective] Order
remained in effect over these documents once they were submitted to the court below as
attachments to a summary judgment motion.”). The Court therefore believes that an individualized
determination is necessary to seal each Joint Status Report. While filing a Motion to Seal for each
Report may be burdensome, this process will best allow the Court to adhere to the procedures
outlined in Knight and the Local Rules. Carahsoft’s Motion for Protective Order is therefore
denied.
II.

Carahsoft’s Motion to Seal the Eleventh Joint Status Report

Carahsoft additionally moves to seal the parties’ Eleventh Joint Status Report, on the basis
that it “contains confidential and commercially sensitive information related to Carahsoft and its
business partners” as well as “discussion of the status and the substance of the pending
investigation being undertaken by the DOJ, which includes several unsupported substantive

2

See, e.g., Virmani v. Novant Health Inc., 259 F.3d 284, 293 n.4 (4th Cir. 2001) (discussing the role of a protective
order in alleviating confidentiality concerns with regard to discovery material produced); Bryte v. American
Household, Inc., 142 F. App’x 699, 703 (4th Cir. 2005) (recognizing the defendant’s legitimate interest in filing
motions for protective order to prevent “unfettered dissemination of its propriety, confidential, trade secret and
private documents” by “seeking to limit discovery to this case and to deny the [plaintiff’s] counsel the right of
sharing discovery with other litigants in other cases[.]”); In re Neubauer, 173 B.R. 505, 506, 508 (D. Md. 1994)
(affirming protective order requiring appellant to disclose names of persons he intends to reveal appellee’s
confidential information to, so as to “prevent competitors from gaining access to its confidential business
information.”).

3

allegations about Carahsoft and its business partners.” (ECF No. 81 at 1-2). The government
opposes the Motion, arguing that sealing the joint status reports impinges upon the well-established
right of public access to judicial proceedings. (ECF No. 83 at 1) (citations omitted). Based on an
independent review of the Joint Status Report, the Court agrees that it contains confidential and
potentially commercially sensitive information which warrants sealing. Pittston Co. v. United
States, 368 F.3d 385, 406 (4th Cir. 2004) (affirming decision to seal documents containing
“confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information); see also Maxtena, Inc. v.
Marks, No. DKC 11-0945, 2013 WL 12328065, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2013). Redacting portions
of the Report will not be sufficient because it generally pertains to the details and status of the
government’s investigation. Accordingly, Carahsoft’s Motion to Seal the Eleventh Joint Status
Report is granted.
/s/
J. Mark Coulson
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 21, 2024

4