Premier Dealer Services, Inc. v. Allegiance Administrators, LLC et al.

Filing 99

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part without Prejudice 96 Motion to File Document Under Seal. Accordingly, with respect to certain documents only, Defendants Motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall file unredacted copies of these documents under seal WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Order. Defendants Motion (ECF No. 96) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with regard to the deposition transcripts of Joseph Campbell and Haytham Elzayn, and deposition exhibits 4, 17, and pages 1112 of exhibit 37. If either party desires that Defendants file these documents under seal to protect information designated Confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 57), the proponent of the sealmust file a properly supported motion that demonstrates good cause for filing under seal WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 01/06/2021. (mdr)

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 3183

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

PREMIER DEALER SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:18-cv-735
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

v.

ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File under Seal (ECF
No. 96). For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
Defendants’ Motion lists several documents they seek to file under seal in unredacted
form; redacted versions of most documents have already been filed on the docket. (Mot. 1, ECF
No. 96.) Defendants represent that deposition exhibits 1, 2, 6, 18, and parts of exhibits 23 and 61
contain information that is subject to the claim of misappropriation, i.e., dealer rates. (Id. at 1–
4.) The Court is satisfied, based on Defendants’ representations, that these documents contain
confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information that overcomes the presumption of public
access to Court records. See Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d
299 (6th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, with respect to these documents only, Defendants’ Motion is
GRANTED. Defendants shall file unredacted copies of these documents under seal WITHIN
SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Order.

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 3184

However, the only basis provided for sealing the remaining documents in Defendants’
Motion (deposition transcripts of Joseph Campbell and Haytham Elzayn, and deposition exhibits
4, 17, and pages 1–112 of exhibit 37) is that they were designated, in whole or in part, as
“Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. (Mot. 1–4, ECF No. 96, citing
Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 57.) Defendants have not demonstrated good cause for
filing these documents under seal.
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Stanley v.
Turner Oil & Gas Properties, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-386, 2017 WL 5068444, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July
24, 2017). The Sixth Circuit has affirmed that documents filed with the Court may be placed
under seal “[o]nly for the most compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Knoxville News–Sentinel Co., 723
F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). “A movant’s obligation to provide compelling reasons justifying
the seal exists even if the parties themselves agree the filings should be sealed.” White v.
Wilberforce Univ., No. 1:16-CV-1165, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017)
(emphasis in original) (citing Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834
F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016)). The proponent of sealing therefore must “analyze in detail,
document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane
Grp., Inc., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir.
2002)). These reasons and legal citations must be sufficient for a district court to “set forth
specific findings and conclusions which justify nondisclosure to the public.” Rudd Equip. Co.,
Inc., 834 F.3d at 594.
Here, Defendants’ Motion fails to meet the high standard set forth by the Sixth Circuit
with regard to the deposition transcripts of Joseph Campbell and Haytham Elzayn, and

2

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 3185

deposition exhibits 4, 17, and pages 1–112 of exhibit 37. Defendants fail to set forth compelling
reasons justifying the sealing of documents, asserting only that the documents in question have
been designated by the parties as “Confidential” under the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No.
57). The parties’ agreement to maintain confidentiality, standing alone, does not constitute a
compelling reason for filing under seal. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710
F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983) (holding that a “confidentiality agreement between the parties
does not bind the court in any way”); White, 2017 WL 3537233, at *2 (finding the parties’ joint
motion to file under seal woefully inadequate where they merely asserted that they decided to
keep the terms of their settlement confidential); In re Black Diamond Mining Co., LLC, No. 1596, 2016 WL 4433356, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2016) (explaining that the existence of a
confidentiality agreement, alone, is not a compelling reason to seal a record). Thus, even where
documents are designated “Confidential,” the moving party must provide compelling reasons
justifying the sealing of those documents.
For the above-stated reasons, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 96) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE with regard to the deposition transcripts of Joseph Campbell and
Haytham Elzayn, and deposition exhibits 4, 17, and pages 1–112 of exhibit 37. If either party
desires that Defendants file these documents under seal to protect information designated
“Confidential” under the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 57), the proponent of the seal
must file a properly supported motion that demonstrates good cause for filing under seal
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS of the date of this Order. The parties are cautioned that any
forthcoming motions regarding filing documents under seal should be narrowly tailored, as the
sealing of documents must be no broader than necessary. See Shane Group, Inc., 825 F.3d at
305.

3

Case: 2:18-cv-00735-EAS-CMV Doc #: 99 Filed: 01/06/21 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 3186

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4