KBent LLC v. First Co

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Defendant's Unopposed RenewedMotion for Leave to File Under Seal [ECF No. 32 ]. The Court DIRECTS Defendant to file public versions of Exhibits 15 through 21 with the redactions proposed in connection with the Motion to Seal. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 3/11/2025) (kcr)

United States District Court
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

KBENT. LLC

§

v.

:

FIRST CO.

:
MEMORANDUM

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-1061-S

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant First Co.’s Unopposed Renewed Motion for Leave to File

Under Seal (“Motion to Seal”) [ECF No. 32]. Having reviewed the Motion to Seal and the
applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal.
I]. BACKGROUND
The parties stipulated to the dismissal of this lawsuit. See ECF No. 23. After the dismissal,
Defendant filed its Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 [ECF

No. 25]. Defendant requested leave to file Exhibits 14 through 21 under seal in their entirety. Def.’s
Unopposed Mot. for Leave to File Under Seal (“Initial Motion to Seal”) [ECF No. 26]. The Court
denied the Initial Motion to Seal for failing to comply with Fifth Circuit law. Order [ECF No. 27]

(citing Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410 (Sth Cir. 2021), and June Med. Servs.,
LLC. v, Phillips, 22 F.4th 512 (Sth Cir. 2022)). Defendant then filed its first Renewed Motion to
Seal [ECF No. 28], which the Court denied with respect to Exhibits 15 through 21 because the
redactions proposed by Defendant were overbroad. See Mem. Op. and Order [ECF No. 29] 3-4.
Subsequently, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Seal.

IL LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.3(b), “[i]fno statute or rule requires or permits a document
to be filed under seal, a party may file a document under seal only on motion and by permission

of the presiding judge.” No statute or rule requires or permits sealing here; therefore, the Court

must determine whether sealing is warranted. The Court “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information
placed in the judicial record.” June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 519-20. In determining whether a

document

should

be sealed, the Court undertakes

a “document-by-document,

line-by-line

balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”
Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard is
“arduous,” and the balancing test is stricter than it is at the discovery stage. June Med. Servs.,

22 F.4th at 521 (citation omitted). “[T]he working presumption is that judicial records should not
be sealed.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419 (citation omitted).
Til. ANALYSIS
Defendant again seeks leave to file Exhibits 15 through 21 in redacted format. Mot. to
Seal 1. Exhibits

15 through 21 are redacted attorney billing records that contain “privileged

information concerning attorney-client communications and reflecting attorney strategy.” Jd. at 2.
Defendant reexamined and revised the proposed redactions. Id.
The Court concludes that filing Exhibits 15 through 21 in redacted form is appropriate.
“Redaction of billing records is acceptable so long as the court has sufficient information to form
an opinion on the reasonableness of the fees.” Randolph v. Dimension Films, 634 F. Supp. 2d 779,

800 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (citation omitted). Defendant’s revised redactions appropriately balance the
need to protect privileged information with the need for the Court to form an opinion. And
redaction “is often practicable and appropriate as the least restrictive means of safeguarding
sensitive information.”

omitted).

United States v. Ahsani,

Further, because the redactions

76 F Ath 441, 453

are narrowly

(5th Cir. 2023)

(citation

tailored to protect only privileged

information, the Court finds that the interests in support of nondisclosure outweigh the public’s

common law right of access to the redacted information contained in Exhibits 15 through 21. See
United States v. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., No. 2:21-CV-022-Z, 2023 WL 8116198, at *4
(N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2023) (“[A]ppropriate redaction rather than sealing is the preferred means of
achieving privacy balanced with the public’s right of access.” (alteration in original) (citation
omitted)).

IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Unopposed Renewed
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal [ECF No. 32]. The Court DIRECTS Defendant to file public

versions of Exhibits 15 through 21 with the redactions proposed in connection with the Motion to
Seal.

SO ORDERED.
SIGNED March 11, 2025.

KAREN GREN SCHOLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE