Builders Group LLC v. Hopkins

Filing 74

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 38 sealed and/or ex parte motion; granting 53 Motion to Redact Limited Information in Memorandum Opinion and Order; granting 61 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal; finding as moot 9 Motion for Leave to File Appendix. (Ordered by Judge Jorge A Solis on 3/11/2025) (cfk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BUILDERS GROUP, LLC,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVIS HOPKINS and SKILLD
LABS, LLC,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-2492-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Builders Group, LLC’s four motions for leave to
file under seal or to redact information (Docs. 9, 38, 53, 61). The Court has analyzed
the proposed sealed documents line-by-line and page-by-page, weighing the public’s
right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure. The Court GRANTS IN
PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 38).
Because this is an amended motion, the motion for leave (Doc. 9) is FOUND TO BE
MOOT. The Court GRANTS the motion to redact limited information in the Court’s
sealed order (Doc. 53), and GRANTS the motion for leave to file under seal Builder
Group’s emergency motion to compel (Doc. 61).
Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Court ORDERS Builders Group
to follow the Court’s instructions for filing, redacting, and sealing the various
documents and the information that they contain, as sort forth herein. All documents
already under seal on the public docket should remain under seal for the time being.

1

I. Legal Standard
The Court takes very seriously its duty to protect the public’s access to judicial
records. 1 Transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental element of the rule
of law—so fundamental that sealing and unsealing orders are immediately
appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. 2 The public’s right to access judicial
records is independent from—and sometimes even adverse to—the parties’ interest. 3
That’s why the judge must serve as the representative of the people and, indeed, the
First Amendment, in scrutinizing requests to seal.
“To decide whether something should be sealed, the court must undertake a
document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of
access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” 4 If the Court seals information,
it must give sufficient reasons to allow for appellate review. 5 Finally, “[p]ublicly
available information cannot be sealed.” 6
II. Analysis
Builders Group seeks to seal several buckets of information: compensation
terms, confidential business agreements and internal processes, the identities of its
customers, and the identities of its developers. The Court considers each motion for

1 See Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021).
2 June Med. Servs. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022).
3 Id.
4 Id. (cleaned up).
5 Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419.
6 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520.

2

leave in turn, while considering each document line-by-line and page-by-page,
weighing the public’s right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.
A. Motion 9
Builders Group seeks leave to file its appendix to the motion for preliminary
injunction and its first amended complaint under seal. Because Builder’s Group filed
an amended motion for leave to seal the same material at Motion 38, the motion at
Motion 9 is FOUND TO BE MOOT.
B. Motion 38
Builders Group seeks leave to file the following under seal: its First Amended
Complaint, its motion for preliminary injunction and related brief, and the appendix
to the motion for preliminary injunction. Generally, Builders Group seeks to redact
information related to compensation, confidential agreements, and customer
information.

Defendants filed a response seeking to strike multiple documents

because they are sealed on the public docket, pursuant to Local Rule 79.2. (Doc. 48).
The response does not appear to challenge the content sought to be sealed, therefore,
the Court will now conduct a line-by-line, page-by-page analysis of the documents
sought to be sealed or redacted. The motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART. Builders Group is INSTRUCTED to file a public, redacted version of its
First Amended Complaint to comply with the instructions set forth below within 14
days of the date of this order.

3

1. The First Amended Complaint
Builders Group attaches both the unredacted complaint as filed (Docs. 11, 382) and the public version, with proposed redactions (Docs. 10, 38-3).
First, Builders Group seeks to redact multiple citations to exhibits throughout
its complaint. These citations are on the following pages of the First Amended
Complaint: pages 4–6, ¶¶ 10, 11, 13, and 14; page 6, ¶ 17; and page 8, ¶ 23. Citations
do not contain confidential or trade secret information, and Builders Group has not
argued that they do. Therefore, the privacy interest in the citations is not outweighed
by the public interest in seeing them on the judicial record. The Court DENIES the
request to redact citations to exhibits and INSTRUCTS Builders Group to file a
modified redacted version without these redactions and any other redacted citations.
Next, Builders Group seeks to redact the compensation terms for Defendant
Hopkins on page 6, paragraph 16. Builders Group argues that the information is
confidential and public disclosure of high-level compensation terms would impact the
company’s competitive advantage. However, the citation following the description of
the compensation terms contains no such information. The Court GRANTS the
request to maintain redactions as to compensation terms, but ORDERS Builders
Group to remove the redaction over the citation, “Exh. 2, p. 1.”
Next, Builders Group seeks to redact portions of Agreements at issue in the
case (pages 6-8, ¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21; page 9, ¶ 26) and the agreements in full (Exhibits
1 and 2). These sections are direct quotes from the employment agreements at the
heart of this trade secret case. Exhibit 1 is Builders Group’s Employee Proprietary

4

Information Agreement. Exhibit 2 is the Builders Group’s offer letter to Defendant
Hopkins. Now, neither of these agreements include language that the contents are
confidential, but Defendant Hopkins has not filed any challenge to the agreements
being sealed, and there is not a significant risk to the public in sealing this
information.

The Court finds that Builders Group interest in keeping these

documents confidential for business competitiveness outweighs the public interest in
seeing the agreements in the judicial record. The Court GRANTS the request to
redact, with the exception of citations. Again, Builders Group is ORDERED to
remove any redactions over a citation in the brief but may redact the quoted material
and the exhibits as proposed.
Builders Group next seeks to redact a description of its electronic storage
system and agreements used within the company (page 9, ¶ 25). Builders Group
argues that it takes steps to maintain the secrecy of these agreements and restrict
access to anyone outside the company, and such a disclosure would impact its
competitive advantage by allowing competitors to learn Builders Group’s confidential
information and use it to Builders Group’s disadvantage.

The Court finds that

Builders Group’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of systems, agreements,
and procedures outweighs the public’s interest in such material. Further, Builders
Group has limited the redactions to the descriptions of the systems and agreements.
The Court GRANTS this request to maintain the redactions to paragraph 25.
Finally, Builders Group seeks to redact discussions with customers and
customer identities at paragraphs 29, 32, 33, 49, 82, 83, and Exhibit 3. Builders

5

Group argues that information about and the identity of its business customers is
confidential pursuant to its information agreements and internal policies. While
Builders Group has a significant business interest in protecting its customer
information and non-party customers have a privacy interest that may outweigh the
public’s interest, Builders Group has redacted information that is outside such
private or confidential customer information. The Court takes each paragraph in
turn.
Paragraph 29 is a description from an email with no identifying customer
information. 7 The Court DENIES the request to redact this paragraph.
Paragraph 32 includes specifics about a named customer.

Below the

paragraph is an image of a job posting. Identifying information is redacted from the
image. Builders Group seeks to redact text in its brief describing the unredacted
image. The Court DENIES IN PART the request to redact paragraph 32. The
sentences describing the image should be unredacted. 8 The redactions on the image
itself may remain since they are limited to identifying customer information.
Paragraph 33 is redacted in totality. The Court DENIES the request to redact
and INSTRUCTS Builders Group to modify the redactions to only redact the
customer’s name, identity, and location.

7 This same email is discussed, without redaction, in Builders Group’s Motion for Preliminary

Injunction.

8 Specifically, the following should be redacted: “Defendants began to actively market Skilld
Labs “new role” in Dallas. A solicitation made by Defendants on October 27, 2023 via Slack to
Builders Group’s developers about SkilldLabs’ “New Open Role. . .in Dallas, Texas” is below:” Doc. 382 at 13–14.

6

Paragraphs 49, 82, and 83 include the identity of Builder Group’s customers.
As the redactions are limited to the customers’ identities, the Court GRANTS the
requests to redact in these paragraphs.
Exhibit 3 is an internal email thread discussing a specific customer and
business arrangements, including financials.

Both the non-party customer and

Builders Group have a business interest in keeping sensitive business information
private that, in this instance, outweighs the public’s interest to view the exhibit as a
part of the judicial record. The Court GRANTS the redaction request.
Within 14 days of the date of this Order, Builders Group is INSTRUCTED to
file a redacted version of the First Amended Complaint on the public docket to comply
with the Court’s instructions above.
2. Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Brief in Support
Builders Group seeks to redact much of the same information in its Motion for
Preliminary Injunction as in its First Amended Complaint: compensation terms,
confidential agreements, and identities of non-parties. Where the redacted material
is the same as the First Amended Complaint, the Court refers the parties to the above
analysis, where the redactions are additional material, the Court addresses in turn.
First, Builders Group seeks to redact information related to compensation of
Defendant Hopkins at page 3, section A. For the reasons stated above, the Court
GRANTS this request to redact.
Next, Builders Group seeks to redact quotes from the two agreements at issue
in this case. These redactions are on pages 3, 4–5. For the same reasons as stated

7

above, the Court GRANTS the request to redact only as quoted language. Citations
are not confidential information.

Builders Group is ORDERED to remove the

redactions over any citations. Builders Group also seeks to redact descriptions of
other internal agreements and procedures at pages 8, note 3 and page 13 note 5.
These requested redactions are also GRANTED for the same reasons discussed in
regards to the First Amended Complaint.
Next, Builders Group seeks to redact the identity of customers on pages 6, 7
lines 5–7, 9, in part, 15, 20, and 23. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART. On page 9 and 23, Builders Group discusses the same solicitation included
in the First Amended Complaint. Builders Group may redact the customer’s name,
identity, and location. Images of the solicitation were already entered into the public
record as partially redacted in the complaint, and the Court will not seal information
that is otherwise public.

On page 23, the Defendants actions do not contain

confidential or sealable material, aside from customer identity, therefore, the Court
DENIES the request as to this section.
Finally, Builders Group seeks to redact information identifying and related to
the identity of its internal developers, including their declarations, on pages 7, lines
17–23, 8, 9 line 1, 14, 18, 19, 20. The redactions should match that in the declarations
of the developers filed at APP. 090–92 and APP. 094–96. A party cannot redact
information in briefing that is publicly filed in the appendix to the same brief. The
Court GRANTS IN PART the requested redactions only as to the identity of nonparties and information that otherwise could be used to identify the individuals. The

8

Court otherwise DENIES the requests and ORDERS the redactions to otherwise be
removed.
The proposed redactions are otherwise acceptable. The Court ORDERS a
public motion to be filed with modified redactions as instructed.
3. Appendix in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
The proposed redactions (Doc. 38-7) to Builders Group Appendix in support of
its motion for preliminary injunction cover the same categories. For the same
reasons, the requests are GRANTED, except where expressly denied below.
The requested redaction on APP. 003 is DENIED IN PART. Builders Group
is ORDERED to file a modified appendix that removes the redaction over “That is
not accurate” as this is not a portion of the confidential agreement.
C. Motion 53
Builders Group seeks to seal the identity of developers in the Court’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 50) at footnotes 40 and 53. As the redactions
are limited to the name of the developer, the motion is GRANTED. Builders Group
did not request the Court to redact the quoted language of the Confidentiality
Agreement, quoted by the Court on pages 18–20 of the Order. The Order will remain
provisionally under seal for 14 days. If Builders Group would like to request leave to
redact this or any other language in the Order, it may file a motion within 14 days of
the date of this order. If nothing further is filed, the Court will have the proposed
redactions (Doc. 38-1) filed to the public docket.

9

D. Motion 61
Builders Group seeks to file its Motion to Compel Arbitration and the attached
Appendix under seal, as redacted. Builders Group seeks to redact a customer’s name
in the Motion and the underlying arbitration subpoena and related discovery. As the
subpoena is subject to the confidentiality order of the arbitration, the Court GRANTS
the motion and unredacted motion and appendix will remain under seal.
III.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for leave
to file under seal (Doc. 38). Because this is an amended motion, the motion for leave
(Doc. 9) is FOUND TO BE MOOT. The Court GRANTS the motion to redact limited
information in the Court’s sealed order (Doc. 53) and GRANTS the motion for leave
to file under seal Builder Group’s emergency motion to compel (Doc. 61).
The Court ORDERS the Builders Group to comply with the Court’s
instructions contained herein. Specifically, within 14 days of the date of this order,
Builders Group is to file, publicly with modified redactions (1) its First Amended
Complaint and (2) its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. If Builders Group has any
further redactions to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 50), it should
file an amended motion within 28 days of the date of this order.
The Court’s instructions are the result of a page-by-page, line-by-line analysis.
Such analysis “is not easy, but it is fundamental” to securing the public’s right of
access to judicial records. 9

9 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2025.

___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11