Antech Diagnostics, Inc v. Morwalk, Inc. et al
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 38 Plaintiff's interim motion to seal motion for summary judgment and memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal within 14 days. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 7/1/14. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
ANTECH DIAGNOSTICS, INC.
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 13-0068
:
TOWN & COUNTRY ANIMAL CLINIC,
INC., et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff moved to seal its motion for summary judgment and
memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment in
their entirety.
(ECF No. 38).
The motion is insufficient and
will be denied without prejudice to the filing of a properly
supported motion.
The Fourth Circuit recently reminded us that:
It is well settled that the public and press
have a qualified right of access to judicial
documents and records filed in civil and
criminal
proceedings.
See
Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555,
580 n. 17, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973
(1980);
Nixon v. Warner Communications,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55
L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); Media Gen. Operations,
Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424, 428 (4th
Cir. 2005). The right of public access
springs from the First Amendment and the
common-law tradition that court proceedings
are presumptively open to public scrutiny.
Va. Dep't of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386
F.3d
567,
575
(4th
Cir.
2004).
“The
distinction between the rights of access
afforded by the common law and the First
Amendment is significant, because the common
law does not afford as much substantive
protection to the interests of the press and
the public as does the First Amendment.” In
re United States for an Order Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 2703, 707 F.3d 283, 290 (4th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Va. Dep't of State
Police, 386 F.3d at 575) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The common-law presumptive
right of access extends to all judicial
documents and records, and the presumption
can be rebutted only by showing that
“countervailing interests heavily outweigh
the public interests in access.” Rushford,
846 F.2d at 253. By contrast, the First
Amendment secures a right of access “only to
particular judicial records and documents,”
Stone, 855 F.2d at 180, and, when it
applies, access may be restricted only if
closure is “necessitated by a compelling
government interest” and the denial of
access is “narrowly tailored to serve that
interest,” In re Wash. Post Co., 807 F.2d
383, 390 (4th Cir. 1986) (quoting Press–
Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501,
510, 104 S.Ct. 819, 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 26566 (4th Cir. 2014).
In
addition, Local Rule 105.11 requires the party seeking sealing
to 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.”
Plaintiff represents that its motion for summary judgment
contains
proprietary
information
2
concerning
its
relationships
with
its
clients
and
proprietary
information
of
IDEXX
Laboratories, Inc. which has been designated “Confidential” or
“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to the
parties’ Stipulated Order Regarding Confidentiality of Discovery
Material granted by this court, which requires the parties to
file any such material under seal.
motion
to
seal
contains
(ECF Nos. 27 and 28).
only
boilerplate
The
recitations.
Plaintiff has made no attempt to redact portions of the filings
as opposed to sealing the documents in their entirety.
See
Visual Mining, Inc. v. Ziegler, No PWG 12-3227, 2014 WL 690905,
at *5 (D.Md. Feb. 21, 2014) (denying motion to seal when the
only
justification
was
that
the
documents
are
“confidential”
under a court-approved Protective Order); Under Armour, Inc. v.
Body Armor Nutrition, LLC, No. JKB-12-1283, 2013 WL 5375444, at
*9 (D.Md. Aug. 23, 2013) (denying motions to seal where “[t]he
parties . . . provided only the barest support for the motions
to seal, usually relying on the protective order issued in th[e]
case” and failed to “provide ‘specific factual representations’
to justify their arguments”); Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 876
F.Supp.2d 560, 576 n.18 (D.Md. 2012) (“In their motion to seal,
Plaintiffs
pursuant
state
to
only
the
that
they
seek
confidentiality
3
to
order,
seal
an
the
exhibits
explanation
insufficient to satisfy the ‘specific factual representations’
that Local Rule 105.11 requires.”).
Accordingly, it is this 1st day of July, 2014, by the United
States
District
Court
for
the
District
of
Maryland
hereby
ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s interim motion to seal motion for summary
judgment and memorandum of law in support of motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 38) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED without
prejudice to renewal within 14 days;
2.
The
clerk
will
transmit
copies
of
the
Memorandum
Opinion and this Order to counsel.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
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?