Lusk v. Life Time Fitness, Inc. et al

Filing 302

ORDER denying 283 Motion for Further Consideration of Sealing. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 4/26/2018 unless further timely submissions are filed.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 4/5/2018. (MSK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Matthew Lusk and St. Clair Employees’
Retirement System,

Civ. No. 15-1911 (JRT/BRT)

Plaintiffs,
v.
Bahram Akradi, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
ON JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Further Consideration of
this Court’s January 29, 2018 Order addressing the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding
Continued Sealing of certain documents. (Doc. Nos. 277 and 283.) 1 Plaintiffs’ challenge
is limited to this Court’s decision allowing continued sealing of Plaintiffs’ Proposed
Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 234.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’
Motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2017, Chief Judge Tunheim issued an order dismissing all of
Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and the case was closed. (Doc. No. 224.) On September
25, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court’s Order and for leave to file
a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 229.) Many sealed documents, including the
1

The parties’ Joint Motion was filed pursuant to Local Rule 5.6, which provided a
procedure for filing under seal in connection with motions governed by Local Rule 7.1.

Proposed Amended Complaint at issue, were filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion.
(Doc. Nos. 231, 234, 235, 247, 251-255, 257, 260-265, and 269.)
The parties filed their Joint Motion to Seal, disputing whether the temporarily
sealed documents should be permanently sealed. (Doc. No. 277.) This Court issued its
Order on the Joint Motion to Seal on January 29, 2018. (Doc. No. 279.) In its Order, the
Court set forth its framework for analysis:
“There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay,
709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013). The public’s right of access “is not absolute,
but requires a weighing of competing interests.” Skky, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 191
F. Supp. 3d 977, 980 (D. Minn. June 10, 2016). “Specifically, the district court
must consider the degree to which sealing a judicial record would interfere with
the interests served by the common-law right of access and balance that
interference against the salutary interests served by maintaining confidentiality of
the information sought to be sealed. The weight that the court gives to the
presumption of access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the
exercise of Article III judicial power and resultant value of such information to
those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. at 1223 (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted).
(Id. at 2.) This Court found that the public’s interest was satisfied by the filing of the
redacted version of the Proposed Second Amended Complaint. (Id. at 3.) A redacted
version had already been filed at Docket No. 242. (See id.)
Following this Court’s Order on sealing, Chief Judge Tunheim issued his January
30, 2018 “Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the
Judgment and for Leave to Amend.” (Doc. No. 280.) On February 26, 2018, Plaintiffs
moved for reconsideration of this Court’s sealing decision. (Doc. No. 283.) In their
request for reconsideration, Plaintiffs conceded that “Chief Judge Tunheim’s Order

2

Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Judgment and for Leave to Amend did not
reach the merits of the Proposed [Amended] Complaint.” (Doc. No. 284, Pl.’s Mem. 3.)
ANALYSIS
“When the common-law right of access is implicated, the court must consider the
degree to which sealing a judicial record would interfere with the interests served by the
common-law right of access and balance that interference against the salutary interests
served by maintaining confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed.” IDT Corp.,
709 F.3d at 1223. The “‘weight that the court gives to the presumption of access must be
governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power
and resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.’” Id.
(quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)).
Plaintiffs provide “three reasons why Plaintiffs’ Proposed Complaint should not
remain under seal.” (Pl.’s Mem. 2.) Each argument fails. First, Plaintiffs argue that
“[r]equiring the Proposed Complaint to remain sealed will unnecessarily complicate
briefing on the appeal and the consideration of the appeal by the Eighth Circuit.” (Pl.’s
Mem. 4.) The Eighth Circuit’s procedural rules provide for the handling of confidential
information. See Eighth Circuit Local Rule 25A(h). Plaintiffs’ contention that dealing
with sealed documents “unnecessarily complicates” appeal proceedings does not alter
this Court’s original analysis.
Second, Plaintiffs argue that Chief Judge Tunheim’s Order Denying Plaintiffs’
Motion to Vacate the Judgment and for Leave to Amend “did not reach the merits of the

3

Proposed Complaint” and “[u]nsealing the Proposed Complaint will allow Plaintiffs to
openly discuss the allegations contained in the Proposed Complaint in their public
filings on appeal.” (Pl.’s Mem. 4.) Plaintiffs’ second argument cuts against the unsealing
of the Proposed Amended Complaint. “Modern cases on the common-law right of access
say that ‘the weight to be given the presumption of access must be governed by the role
of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and resulting value of
such information to those monitoring the federal courts.’” IDT Corp.,709 F.3d at 1224.
“When a document plays only a negligible role in a court’s exercise of its Article III
duties, the public’s interest in access to the document is weak and the weight of the
presumption is low and amounts to little more than a prediction of public access absent a
countervailing reason.” Id. Plaintiffs concede that the District Court did not reach the
merits of the Proposed Amended Complaint. (Pl.’s Mem. 4.) In fact, the under seal
contents of the proposed amended complaint were not discussed in Chief Judge
Tunheim’s Order. The document played little, if any, role in the Court’s exercise of its
Article III duties and the public’s interest is weak. Therefore, the balance tips in favor of
maintaining the confidential information under seal. 2
Plaintiffs’ third reason also fails. Defendants’ reasons for keeping the information
contained in the Proposed Amended Complaint are set forth in multiple filings. This case
is closed. Fact discovery arguments are irrelevant. Plaintiffs offer no legal basis to

2

This Court agrees with Defendants that the sealing analysis might have been
different if the Proposed Amended Complaint had been allowed. (See Doc. No. 292,
Defs.’ Mem. 5–6.)

4

support the disclosure of a confidential proposed amended complaint in a closed case—
especially when a redacted version is publicly available. The public’s interest in a
proposed amended complaint that is unanswered by the Defendants is outweighed by the
confidentiality interests of the Defendants and third parties. See Accenture Glob. Servs.
GMBH v. Guidewire Software Inc., 631 F.Supp. 2d 504, 510 (D. Del. 2009)
(“[D]efendants’ answer and counterclaims recites hearsay out of context from documents
designated as confidential that might not otherwise ever be exposed to public scrutiny at
trial. Defendant uses such materials not merely for purposes of its litigation strategy, but
(were the pleading to be unsealed) in a larger public relations fight. . . .The court
concludes, then, that its interest in maintaining the amended answer and counterclaims
under seal overcomes the presumption of public access.”)
The district court’s decision on remand in IDT Corp. is instructive. IDT Corp. v.
eBay, No. 10-cv-4097, Doc. No. 26 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 19, 2014) (quoting IDT, 709 F.3d at
1225) (requiring the district court to “unseal a redacted complaint or deny the motion to
unseal with an explanation why the entire complaint should remain under seal.”). .
Pursuant to the Eighth Circuit’s directive, the court concluded that the suggested
redactions were “both necessary and proper.” Id. The district court did not unseal the
complaint in its entirety but ordered a redacted version of the complaint to be filed. Id. at
2. A redacted version of the complaint was filed on February 25, 2014. IDT Corp., Case
No. 10-cv-4097 (W.D. Ark.) (Doc. No. 27.)
Here, a redacted version of the proposed amended complaint is already filed. The
proposed amended complaint that was never allowed and not answered. To the extent that

5

the public has an interest in Plaintiffs’ proposed filing, the redacted version at Doc. No.
242 provides the public with sufficient information “to evaluate the reasonableness and
fairness of judicial proceedings and to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public
agencies.” IDT Corp. 709 F. 3d at 1222 (internal quotations omitted).
January 29, 2018 Order Regarding Other Documents
Defendants did not move for reconsideration of this Court’s Order regarding the
requirement to file redacted versions of the other documents. The parties’ letters on this
topic do not comply with the Local Rules. (Doc. Nos. 282, 287.) This Court, however,
wishes to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this proceeding in
this closed case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The Court has reviewed the proposed redactions to
Doc. Nos. 231, 247, 251, 252, 254, 255, 257 and 269 (submitted in camera) and finds
that the redacted versions satisfy the public’s interest in the judicial proceedings related
to the underlying motion that was before the District Court. The redacted filings must
reference the corresponding under seal document. Defendants must file these amended
redacted documents pursuant to this Court’s January 29, 2018 Order.

6

ORDER
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

2.

This Court’s January 28, 2018 Order is modified to require Defendants to

file the redacted documents no later than April 16, 2018.

Date: April 5, 2018

s/ Becky R. Thorson
BECKY R. THORSON
United States Magistrate Judge

7