Blu Dot Design & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Stitch Industries, Inc.

Filing 76

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 74 Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. Permanent Sealing GRANTED for Document Number(s): 56.Document Number(s) to be UNSEALED: 53, 57. Order on continued sealing becomes final on 4/13/2018 unless further timely submissions are filed.(Written Opinion) Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 3/16/2018. (BJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Blu Dot Design & Manufacturing, Inc.,

Case No. 17-cv-3208-PJS-KMM

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR
CONTINUED SEALING

Stitch Industries, Inc., d/b/a Joybird
Furniture,
Defendant.

The parties have filed a Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing. [ECF
No. 74.] The motion concerns three documents filed under temporary seal pursuant
to Local Rule 5.6 in connection with the Defendant, Stitch Industries Inc.’s (“Stitch”),
motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. These documents
include: (1) an un-redacted memorandum filed by the Plaintiff, Blu Dot Design &
Manufacturing Inc. (“Blu Dot”), in opposition to the personal jurisdiction motion
[ECF No. 53]; and (2) Exhibits K and L to Lora Friedemann’s Declaration [ECF
No. 56 & 57 (respectively)]. The Court addresses the issue of continued sealing of
each of these documents separately below.
The Memorandum
With respect to Blu Dot’s un-redacted memorandum in opposition to Stitch’s
motion to dismiss, the parties disagree whether it should remain under seal. [See ECF
1

No. 74 at 2.] In opposing Stitch’s motion to dismiss, Blu Dot references information
that Stitch provided during the limited jurisdictional discovery permitted by the Court.
Stitch designated certain information as confidential under the parties’ stipulated
Protective Order. Therefore, Blu Dot redacted portions of its opposition
memorandum. Blu Dot’s redactions include references to: (1) Stitch’s revenues from
sales to Minnesota customers; (2) number of online chat sessions with Minnesota
customers; (3) number of catalogs mailed to Minnesota residents; (4) total number of
furniture sales to Minnesota residents; (5) changes in Stitch’s sales over time; and
(6) percentage of Stitch’s business attributable to Minnesota sales. [See Pl.’s Redacted
Mem. at 1, 8-9, 15-18, ECF No. 54.] Stitch argues that the Court should maintain the
confidentiality of this information because it “contains business information
exchanged during jurisdictional discovery and designated by [Stitch] as ‘Confidential –
Attorneys’ Eyes Only’ or ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the Protective Order in this case.”
[ECF No. 74 at 2.] Blu Dot disagrees, arguing that “[Stitch] has not met its burden of
proof in showing that the information . . . is properly sealed or redacted.” [Id.]
Based on the entire record, the Court concludes that the public’s interest in
access outweighs Stitch’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the redacted
information in Blu Dot’s memorandum. See IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222
(8th Cir. 2013) (requiring a court to balance the public’s general interest in access to
judicial records with the “salutary interests served by maintaining confidentiality of the
information sought to be sealed”). Specifically, the Court finds that the information at
2

issue is not highly sensitive, competitive business information, so Stitch’s interest in
confidentiality is not particularly strong. In addition, the redacted information is likely
to be of great importance to the District Court’s consideration of the personal
jurisdiction issue, thus increasing the public’s interest in access.
Exhibit L
Although the parties agree that Exhibit L to the Friedemann Declaration
should remain under seal, the Court finds otherwise. Exhibit L includes information
about the number of Stitch’s direct mailings to Minnesota residents, which is one of
the categories of information the Court finds is likely to be of consequence in
resolving the personal jurisdiction issue. It is not plain that any of the data reflected in
Exhibit L constitutes highly sensitive or competitive business information. This
Exhibit does not, for example, include contact information for potential customers or
any formula Stitch uses to determine value of marketing strategies. Accordingly, the
Court finds that the public’s interest in access outweighs Stitch’s interest in
confidentiality with respect to Exhibit L.
Exhibit K
The parties agree that Exhibit K to the Friedemann Declaration should remain
under seal. Based on its review of the record, the Court finds that Exhibit K should
remain under seal. Exhibit K contains potentially sensitive and competitive business
information about how Stitch values certain aspects of its business operations. Stitch’s
interest in confidentiality of this information is therefore stronger than the redacted
3

portions of the memorandum or in Exhibit L. In addition, the Court finds the public’s
interest in this information to be of less significance because it is not plainly relevant
to the personal jurisdiction issue the District Court has been asked to resolve.
Order
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Clerk is directed to keep ECF No. 56 sealed.

2.

The Clerk is directed to unseal ECF No. 53 and ECF No. 57 28 days

after the issuance of this Order, unless a timely motion for further consideration is
filed pursuant to D. Minn. LR 5.6(d)(3).
s/ Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 16, 2018

4