Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited et al
Filing
154
ORDER granting 152 Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. Permanent Sealing GRANTED for Document Number(s): 147, 149.Document Number(s) to be UNSEALED: 145. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 11/13/2018 unless further timely submissions are filed.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 10/16/2018. (LCC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Willis Electric Co., Ltd.
Case No. 0:15-cv-3443-WMW-KMM
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Polygroup Limited (Macao Commercial
Offshore),
Defendant.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.6, the parties filed a joint motion regarding continued
sealing for documents filed under temporary seal in connection with the plaintiff
Willis Electric Co., Ltd. (“Willis”)’s motions to lift the stay and to amend the
pleadings. (ECF Nos. 109, 115.) The parties agree that document entry 145 should
be unsealed, but disagree regarding docket entries 147 and 149. The defendants,
Polygroup Limited (“Polygroup”) believe docket entries 147 and 149 should remain
sealed, but Willis believes the documents should be unsealed. Having reviewed these
documents, the Court concludes that the public interest in the right of access does not
outweigh Polygroup’s interest in the confidentiality of these two documents at this
time. Accordingly, docket entries 147 and 149 should remain sealed.
Polygroup filed docket entries 147 and 149 in its opposition briefing of Willis’s
motions. Entry 147 is an email between counsel for Polygroup and Willis discussing
the amendment of pleadings in another related case that is pending in the Western
District of North Carolina. See Polygroup Macau Ltd. v. Willis Elec. Co., Ltd., 3:15-cv-552
(W.D.N.C.). Entry 149 is the proposed Third Amended Answer and Counterclaims
(“TAAC”) that Willis—the defendant in that case—wanted to file. Contained within
the email and the TAAC are new allegations against Polygroup. The TAAC also
contains information regarding customers of both Polygroup and Willis, as well as the
bidding process used by Polygroup, Willis, and their competitors to attract those
customers.
Willis’s motion to lift the stay was denied and its motion to amend the
complaint was deemed withdrawn without prejudice. (ECF No. 153.) The merits of
the motion to amend the complaint were not reached in any way. Because the
contested documents in this motion related to the motion to amend the complaint,
they were not considered by the Court.
“There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v. eBay,
709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597 (1978)). This right of access “is fundamental to ensuring the public’s
confidence and trust in the judiciary.” In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/FLN), 2018 WL 2135016 at *2
(D. Minn. May 9, 2018). Local Rule 5.6 guides this Court’s consideration of a motion
to keep judicial documents under seal. Local Rule 5.6 emphasizes the “presumption
that the public has a qualified right of access to material filed.” Id. at *1; L.R.D. Minn.
5.6 Advisory Committee’s notes (2017). However, the public’s right of access is not
absolute. Instead, competing interests—the party’s interest in confidentiality and the
public’s interest in access—must be weighed against each other. E.g., Webster Groves
Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990).
Here, the public’s interest in access to judicial documents that were not
considered by the Court is very weak. “In this circumstance, ‘the weight of the
presumption is low and amounts to little more than a prediction of public access
absent a countervailing reason.’” IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1224 (quoting United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). In contrast, the currently sealed
documents contain confidential and competitively sensitive information, which gives
great weight to Polygroup’s interest in keeping the documents sealed. Therefore,
under the current circumstances, the Court concludes that Polygroup’s interests in
confidentiality outweigh the public’s general interest in access to judicial documents.
Based on the Court’s review of the entire record in this proceeding, the Court
agrees that document 145 should be unsealed, and documents 147 and 149 should
remain under seal. Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to unseal the following
document: ECF No. 145. The Clerk is directed to keep the following
documents sealed: ECF Nos. 147 and 149.
Date: October 16, 2018
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge
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?