High 5 Sportswear, Inc. v. High 5 Gear, Inc.

Filing 44

ENTRY AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF HIGH 5 SPORTSWEAR, INC. AND DEFENDANT H5G, LLC'S JOINT RESPONSE 43 TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 42 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 8-18-2016. (de)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
HIGH 5 SPORTSWEAR, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

:

Case No. 3:15-cv-00401

:

Judge Thomas M. Rose

:

HIGH 5 GEAR, INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

:
:
:

v.
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA,

:
:

Third-Party Defendant.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF HIGH 5 SPORTSWEAR, INC.
AND DEFENDANT H5G, LLC’S JOINT RESPONSE (DOC. 43)
TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (DOC. 42)
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Joint Response (Doc. 43) filed by Plaintiff High 5
Sportswear, Inc. (“High Five”) and Defendant H5G, LLC (“H5G”) to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 42) why its Order denying H5G’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction should not be unsealed. The Court filed its Order denying H5G’s Motion to Dismiss
under seal because it contained sales and revenue information from High Five’s Opposition,
which the Court had permitted to be filed under seal.

Upon review, however, the Court

questioned whether its Order denying H5G’s Motion to Dismiss contained information that
required sealing in light of the Sixth Circuit’s most recent discussion of the applicable standard
in Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 15-1544, 2016 WL 3163073, at

*4 (6th Cir. June 7, 2016). In response, both High Five and H5G assert that the Court’s Order
contains confidential business information that, if disclosed, could be used by H5G’s competitors
in attempts to seize its market share. At this time, the Court will permit its Order denying H5G’s
Motion to Dismiss to remain sealed, but the Court may revisit this issue if it arises in the future,
such as on a dispositive motion filed after the close of discovery.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, August 18, 2016.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2