Lanzetta v. Hyundai Motor America Inc

Filing 103

ORDER granting 84 Motion to Seal; granting 95 Motion to Seal. Signed by Chief Judge R Bryan Harwell on 4/28/2020. (hcic, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Margaret A. Lanzetta and Paul Lanzetta,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
Hyundai Motor America, Inc., Hyundai
)
Motor Company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-03390-RBH

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendants' motions [ECF Nos. 84 & 95] to seal exhibits
to the following motions: 1) Defendants' [ECF No. 82] motion for summary judgment; 2)
Defendants' [ECF No. 83] Daubert motion to exclude opinions and related testimony of Larry
Sicher; 3) Defendants' [ECF No. 86] motion in limine to exclude assertions that the subject seat
fails Hyundai Engineering Standard ES88001-10; and 4) Defendants' [ECF No. 88] motion in limine
to exclude all statements, arguments, or suggestions that Plaintiff "ramped."
Defendants argue the exhibits contain confidential technical documents that contain
commercially sensitive information that is proprietary to Defendant Hyundai Motor Company.
Defendants also assert that each of the exhibits is a trade secret, as defined by the Defend Trade
Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3), and the South Carolina Trade Secrets Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 398-20(5). Plaintiffs do not object to the motion to seal.
The court has reviewed the materials submitted on this matter. In accordance with In
re Knight Publishing Company, 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984), the court grants the foregoing
motions to seal.
Public notice of the motions to seal was accomplished by docketing the motions to seal

"reasonably in advance of deciding the issue." In re Knight Publishing Co., 743 F.2d at 235.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.03, the notice requirement may be accomplished by docketing the
motion in a manner that discloses its nature as a motion to seal. See Local Civil Rule 5.03(D)
(D.S.C.). The motions to seal were docketed as motions to seal and were filed on April 7, 2020, and
April 14, 2020. Any interested party has had sufficient time to seek intervention to contest any
sealing order, but no opposition has been filed.
The Court has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the exhibits and finds that less
drastic alternatives are not appropriate in this case, as the documents and items concern confidential
and proprietary information of Defendants, the disclosure of which may cause financial harm. The
court has independently reviewed the documents and items in camera and concludes that they do not
lend themselves to selective redaction.
The court finds persuasive the arguments of counsel in favor of sealing the exhibits and
rejecting the alternatives. The exhibits constitute trade secrets, which, if disclosed, would provide
an unfair competitive advantage to Defendants' competitors. Courts have specifically recognized an
exception to the public's right of access when a case involves trade secrets. See ATI Indus.
Automation, Inc. v. Applied Robotics, Inc., 801 F. Supp. 2d 419, 428 (M.D.N.C. 2011). The court
notes that the litigant’s interest in nondisclosure of such confidential commercial and proprietary
information outweighs the public’s right to access the exhibits. See May v. Medtronic Inc., No. CA
6:05-794-HMH, 2006 WL 1328765, *1 (D.S.C. May 15, 2006). The confidential and sensitive
nature of the information in the exhibits at issue requires that they be sealed. Therefore, the court
GRANTS Defendants' motions to seal [ECF Nos. 84 & 95].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2

April 28, 2020
Florence, South Carolina

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

3