EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al v. XACTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. et al

Filing 762

ORDER Granting 566 Motion to Seal 561 Transcript; ORDERED that to the extent not already done, defendants shall file a redacted copy of Doc. No. 561 in accordance with this Order by 9/26/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 9/12/2019. (dmr)

[Doc. No. 566]
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil No. 15-7025 (RMB/JS)

XACTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
et al.,
Defendants.

O R D E R
This matter is before the Court on the “Motion to Seal”
(“motion”) [Doc. No. 566] filed by defendants Xactware Solutions,
Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc. (collectively, “defendants”). The
Court exercises its discretion to decide the motion without oral
argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the following
reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Defendants’ motion is supported by the Declaration of Jeffrey
D. Lewis [Doc. No. 566-2] and an index [Doc. No. 566-1]. Defendants
seek to redact and seal portions of the transcript of proceedings
held on February 4, 2019 before the Honorable Robert B. Kugler,
U.S.D.J. [Doc. No. 561]. The limited portions of the transcript
defendants seek to seal are listed in the index attached to their
motion.
1

It is well-established there is “a common law public right of
access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp.,
260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). When a party
files a motion to seal it must demonstrate that “good cause” exists
for protection of the material at issue. Securimetrics, Inc. v.
Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL 827889, at
*2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause exists when a party makes “a
particularized

showing

that

disclosure

will

cause

a

‘clearly

defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id.
(citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.
1994)).
The applicable requirements to seal documents are set forth
in L. Civ. R. 5.3(c), which requires that a motion to seal
describe: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue;
(b) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the
relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that
would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a
less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.
L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3).
The Court has reviewed the subject materials in detail to
decide this motion and finds that defendants have sufficiently
described the nature of the materials they seek to redact and seal.
The subject materials generally concern defendants’ confidential
2

commercial and business information. Specifically, the material
contains non-public financial information related to defendants’
products and sales. The Court agrees there exists a legitimate
private interest in maintaining the subject material under seal.
The Court finds, as defendants contend, if the subject material is
made public, they could be harmed by unfair competition, placing
them at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace, and risk
financial damage and injury to their business interests. Likewise,
the Court finds there is no less restrictive alternative than to
redact limited portions of the subject materials.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 12th day of September 2019, that
defendants’ “Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 566] is GRANTED; and it is
further
ORDERED the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain under
seal the transcript of proceedings held on February 4, 2019 before
the Honorable Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J. [Doc. No. 561]; and it is
further
ORDERED that to the extent not already done, defendants shall
file a redacted copy of Doc. No. 561 in accordance with this Order
by September 26, 2019.
s/ Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge
3