Sisk v. Abbott Laboratories

Filing 243

ORDER denying without prejudice Pltf's 239 Motion to File Sealed Submissions and Documents; and denying without prejudice Deft's 241 Unopposed Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/9/14. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00159-MR-DLH

KIMBERLY S. SISK, individually and )
as mother and natural guardian of
)
S.A.S., a minor,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an
)
Illinois corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to File
Sealed Submissions and Documents [Doc. 239] and Defendant’s
Unopposed Motion to Seal [Doc. 241].
By her motion, the Plaintiff seeks permission to file her Motion for
New Trial, the supporting memorandum of law, and all exhibits, including
the trial transcript, under seal. For grounds, the Plaintiff states that her
filings include and/or reference certain exhibits which, although not
admitted at trial, were designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential”
pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case.

The

Plaintiff further states that references are made to the trial transcript, which
the Court instructed at the conclusion of the trial should not be made part of
the public record unless and until the Defendant received notice and an
opportunity to designate portions of the transcript “Confidential” or “Highly
Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order. [Doc. 239]. The Defendant
does not oppose the Plaintiff’s request and in turn seeks leave to file under
seal its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion as well as certain pages from the trial
transcript, which are attached as Exhibits 1-4 to its motion. [Doc. 241].
The Plaintiff does not oppose the Defendant’s request to seal these
materials.
The pleadings at issue are the type to which the public has a
presumptive right of access under the First Amendment.

See United

States v. Parker, No. 3:13-133-CMC, 2013 WL 5530269, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct.
7, 2013) (applying First Amendment analysis to response to defendant’s
motion for new trial). The Fourth Circuit has recognized that “[w]hen the
First Amendment provides a right of access, a district court may restrict
access [to judicial records] only on the basis of a compelling governmental
interest, and only if the denial is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
Va. Dep’t of State Police v. Wash. Post, 386 F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004)
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
2

The burden to overcome the

public’s right to access under the First Amendment is on the party seeking
to restrict such access. See Company Doe v. Public Citizen, __ F.3d __,
2014 WL 1465728, at *20 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2014).

Mere conclusory

assertions of a compelling interest are insufficient to carry this burden. See
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 15 (1986).
Moreover, before sealing a court document, the Court must “(1)
provide public notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a
reasonable opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to
sealing the documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual
findings supporting its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the
alternatives.” Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
In support of its motion to seal, the Defendant states that the subject
materials “contain, among other things, Abbott’s trade secrets and other
commercially sensitive information.” [Doc. 241 at 2]. While a compelling
government interest may exist in protecting trade secrets and other
sensitive proprietary information, see Nixon v. Warner Communications,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978), the Defendant’s conclusory assertions of
the need to protect “trade secrets and other commercially sensitive
information” [Doc. 241 at 2] are insufficient to meet the Defendant’s burden
in this case.

In order to justify the sealing of such documents, the
3

Defendant must identify the specific trade secret or proprietary information
at issue.

Merely claiming a potential for reputational harm will be

insufficient to satisfy this burden. Company Doe, 2014 WL 1465728, at *18
(“A corporation very well may desire that the allegations lodged against it in
the course of litigation be kept from public view to protect its corporate
image, but the First Amendment right of access does not yield to such an
interest.”).
Similarly, the Plaintiff’s conclusory reference to information which the
parties have mutually agreed is “confidential,” without more, is insufficient
to justify restricting the public’s presumptive right of access to the subject
documents. See Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., No. 12-cv-02777-JST,
2013 WL 5340697, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013) (“[A] a party’s
designation of a document as “Confidential” is not determinative, nor
necessarily even helpful, on the question of whether that document should
be filed under seal. A document designated as “Confidential” in discovery
may ultimately be filed in the public record; conversely, a document
produced without designation, or produced in the absence of a protective
order, may later be filed under seal.
other.”).

4

One has nothing to do with the

Through their motions, the parties seek the wholesale filing under
seal of the trial transcript and the entirety of these post-trial proceedings.
The parties, however, have failed to articulate compelling interests that
outweigh the strong presumption of public access to these documents.
Accordingly, the parties’ motions to seal will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED the Plaintiff’s Motion to File Sealed
Submissions and Documents [Doc. 239] and Defendant’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal [Doc. 241] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The

parties’ pleadings shall remain under seal for a period of fourteen (14) days
in order to allow the parties an opportunity to refile their respective motions
to seal. If no motions to seal are refiled within the fourteen-day period, the
Court will direct the Clerk to unseal the respective documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 9, 2014

5