Nestle Purina PetCare Company v. The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd.

Filing 1840

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions for Leave to File Under Seal [ 1796 , 1799 , 1801 , 1805 , 1810 , 1811 , 1815 , 1817 , 1822 ] are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties have provisional leave to file a ny documents and exhibits containing confidential information under seal in the manner described herein, without first filing a motion for leave to file under seal. The parties must still file on the public docket redacted versions of such documents or explain to the Court why such redaction is not possible. [SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS] Signed by Sr. District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/8/2023. (NEP)

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 1840 Filed: 09/08/23 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 43175

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
AND RELATED ACTIONS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14 CV 859 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are numerous motions for leave to file under seal pursuant
to E.D. Mo. Local Rule 13.05(A)(4). [1796, 1799, 1801, 1805, 1810, 1811, 1815,
1817, 1822]. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are all granted. In
addition, as further set forth below, the Court provisionally authorizes the parties to
file confidential information under seal as necessary in the future without filing
separate motions for leave to file under seal.
Throughout this litigation, the parties have sought to seal a number of filings
from the public docket due to the confidential nature of the information contained
in those filings. At issue in the instant motions are confidential documents that
have been submitted by the parties in connection with dispositive and Daubert
motions.

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 1840 Filed: 09/08/23 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 43176

“Generally speaking, there is a common-law right of access to judicial
records, but that right is not absolute.” Flynt v. Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508, 511
(8th Cir. 2018) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98
(1978), and IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013)). “This
right of access bolsters public confidence in the judicial system by allowing
citizens 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 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598) (internal citation omitted). “ The
decision whether to seal a judicial record is left to the sound discretion of the
trial court ‘in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular
case.’” Wishah v. City of Country Club Hills, 2021 WL 3860328, at *2 (E.D.
Mo. Aug. 30, 2021) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). “Where 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 presumption of public access to judicial records
may be overcome if the party seeking to keep the records under seal provides
compelling reasons for doing so.” Flynt, 885 F.3d at 511 (citing In re Neal, 461
F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006)).
2

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 1840 Filed: 09/08/23 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 43177

The parties have submitted legal memoranda in support of each of the
motions, indicating that the documents sought to be filed under seal are subject
to the protective order previously entered in this case as either confidential
documents or documents marked with the “confidential – attorneys’ eyes only”
designation. The parties have filed redacted copies of their documents on the
public docket, with redactions that the Court finds to be reasonable in scope and
targeted at information designated as confidential in nature.
Upon careful review of the documents at issue, the Court determines that
the information the parties seek to file under seal meets the confidential
designations of the protective order and the parties’ interest in maintaining the
confidentiality in the material at issue outweighs the public’s right of access. See
IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1224 (affirming the district court’s decision to seal
certain “confidential and competitively sensitive business information”); Eagan,
2021 WL 6134381, at *2 (noting that parties have a legitimate interest in keeping
private financial information confidential); In re Bair Hugger Forced Air
Warming Devices Prod. Liab. Litig., 2020 WL 4035548, at *2 (D. Minn. July 27,
2020) (“Unsealing documents containing confidential business operations
communications would provide competitors with insight into how [the company
makes] business decisions, which would give competitors the ability to make
strategic decisions to negative impact [the company’s] market share.”).
3

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 1840 Filed: 09/08/23 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 43178

Given the Court’s familiarity with this litigation, it expects more motions
for leave to file under seal in connection with further briefing. Due to the
unusually high volume of motions to seal that the parties have had to file in this
matter, coupled with the consistently meritorious nature of their motions thus far,
the Court will take the highly unusual step of provisionally authorizing the
sealing of memoranda and exhibits that contain sensitive information, assuming
that information is similar in kind to the information the Court has already
authorized the parties to file under seal. The parties have leave of Court to file
such documents under seal without filing motions requesting permission to
seal. The parties must continue to file redacted versions of any sealed
documents on the public docket, however, and they are cautioned to be as
judicious in future redactions as they have been thus far.
Because this ruling is provisional and prospective in nature, the Court
reserves the right to revisit it, and if the Court determines that anything filed
under seal does not meet the legal standard for sealing, it may order such
information unsealed after appropriate notice to the parties.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions for Leave to File Under Seal
[1796, 1799, 1801, 1805, 1810, 1811, 1815, 1817, 1822] are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties have provisional leave to file
4

Case: 4:14-cv-00859-RWS Doc. #: 1840 Filed: 09/08/23 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 43179

any documents and exhibits containing confidential information under seal in the
manner described herein, without first filing a motion for leave to file under seal.
The parties must still file on the public docket redacted versions of such documents
or explain to the Court why such redaction is not possible.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 8th day of September, 2023.

5