Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. v. Allied World National Assurance Company

Filing 250

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 248 Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. Permanent Sealing GRANTED for Document Numbers: 73, 78, 82, 103, 107, 146, 154, 156, 161, 165, 167, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194, 208, 213, 228, 229, and 236.Document Numbers to be UNSEALED: 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 11 5, 116, 117, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 174, 179, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 20 2, 203, 204, 211, 212, 214, 215, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, and 235. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 6/13/2019 unless further timely submissions are filed.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 5/16/2019. (JRE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.,

Case No. 17-cv-776 (ADM/TNL)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Allied World National Assurance
Company,
Defendant.

On April 3, 2019, the parties submitted a joint motion regarding continued sealing
pursuant to Local Rule 5.6. (ECF No. 246). In that motion, the parties agreed that many
documents should remain sealed because they were “designated as confidential pursuant
to the Protective Order; quote or reference documents marked confidential; designated as
confidential in another litigation; or designated as confidential by a nonparty.” (ECF No.
247). Because the parties did not adequately describe the reasons why those documents
merited protection from public filing, the Court struck that motion and ordered the parties
to refile it. (ECF No. 247). The parties did so on May 10, 2019. (ECF No. 248).
In their new motion, the parties disagree as to whether several documents should
remain sealed. For some, Plaintiff asserts they should remain sealed because they were
filed under seal in a related litigation. (See e.g., ECF No. 248, p. 4). For others, Plaintiff
asserts the document should remain sealed because it was designated confidential by a third
party. (See e.g., id., p. 7). For others, Plaintiff asserts the documents should remain sealed
because they were designated as confidential in the underlying litigation. (See e.g., id., p.

9). Finally, for others, Plaintiff asserts the document either contains a confidentiality clause
(See e.g., id., p. 26) or proprietary information. (See e.g., id., p. 40). Defendant asserts that
these documents should be unsealed.
“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 is because the 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). This district has enacted Local Rule 5.6 to guide the consideration of
a motion to keep documents filed with the Court under seal. The Local Rule emphasizes
that though there is a presumption to public access to judicial records, that right is not
absolute. L.R.D. Minn. 5.6 Advisory Committee’s notes (2017). Instead, the Court must
balance that interest against the moving party’s interest in confidentiality. See e.g., Webster
Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). The advisory
comments to Local Rule 5.6 make clear, however, that the purpose of the rule is to reduce
the amount of information under seal.
In this case, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to seal documents that have
been filed under seal in a related litigation. Likewise, the Court believes that it is proper to
seal documents that Plaintiff has identified as containing confidentiality clauses, as well as
those documents that Plaintiff claims contain proprietary information. There is sufficient
information in the parties’ joint sealing motion for the Court to make this determination.

2

The Court cannot, however, reach the same conclusion regarding the documents that
Plaintiff wishes to have sealed simply because they or a third party designated them as
confidential in this litigation or in a related litigation. As the Court noted in its order striking
the previous joint motion, “[s]imply stating that the document was designated as
confidential under a protective order issued or pursuant to the parties’ agreement is
insufficient.” The parties must identify what in those documents merits confidential
treatment. See e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) (permitting protective order related to trade
secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information).
The Court has, however, reviewed each document that Plaintiff wishes to have
sealed because they or a third party designated them as confidential in this litigation or in
a related litigation. It is apparent from the Court’s review that some of those documents
merit continued sealing. The Court will order that those documents remain sealed. For all
other documents, where the need for continued sealing is not apparent from review of the
document, the Court will order those documents unsealed.
Therefore, upon careful consideration of the motions filed and the related sealed
documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion Regarding
Continued Sealing Regarding Allied World National Assurance Company’s and Tile Shop
Holdings, Inc.’s Motions for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 248), is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The Clerk is directed to keep these documents sealed: ECF Nos. 73, 78, 82, 103,
107, 146, 154, 156, 161, 165, 167, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 183, 184,
185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 194, 208, 213, 228, 229, and 236.

3

2. The Clerk is directed to unseal these documents immediately: ECF Nos. 76, 77, 79,
80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 126, 127, 128,
129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147,
149, 150, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 170, 174,
179, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 211, 212, 214, 215,
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, and 235.

Date: May 16, 2019

s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. v. Allied World
National Assurance Company
Case No. 17-cv-776 (ADM/TNL)

4