Metso Minerals Industries Inc et al v. Astec Industries Inc et al

Filing 154

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 12/4/12 that if a party believes that any sealed document pertaining to the parties motions for summary judgment contains a trade secret, that party shall file the statement described in the previous paragraph within thirty days of the date of this order. Further granting 75 , 98 Motions to Seal. See order. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
METSO MINERALS INDUSTRIES, INC.
and METSO MINERALS (FRANCE) S.A.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-C-0951

JOHNSON CRUSHERS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and ASTEC INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER
In the course of briefing their motions for summary judgment, the parties filed a
large quantity of materials under seal, including portions of briefs and proposed findings
of fact, entire depositions, and exhibits. However, in reaching my decision on the motions
for summary judgment, I relied heavily on the materials that are presently under seal, and
documents “that influence or underpin the judicial decision are open to public inspection
unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term
confidentiality.” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002). These
other categories include information covered by a recognized privilege (such as the
attorney-client privilege) and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence
(such as the name of a minor victim of a sexual assault). Id. at 546. The materials that the
parties in the present case wish to keep sealed do not fall into either of the latter two
categories of information, and thus those materials may remain sealed only if they contain
trade secrets.

The parties in their motions to seal do not demonstrate that the materials they wish
to keep secret contain trade secrets. To be sure, the parties assert that some of the
materials contain trade secrets, but they do not attempt to demonstrate that they meet the
definition of a trade secret. To keep a document that is vital to a judicial opinion secret on
the ground that it contains a trade secret, the party wanting that result must offer an
argument showing that the document contains a trade secret or something comparable
whose economic value depends on its secrecy; a bald assertion will not do. Id. at 547.
My own review of the documents filed under seal leads me to believe that the
documents do not contain trade secrets and that the parties will not be harmed if the
documents are opened to the public. Most of the information in these documents relates
to the design and sale of products in the mid-1990s, and it is hard to see how that
information could have value to a competitor today. However, before unsealing the
documents, I will give the parties an opportunity to file statements showing that public
disclosure of those documents, or some subset of them, would be harmful. Each party’s
statement must address the documents that that party wants to keep sealed on a
document-by-document basis, identify which parts of each document contain information
constituting trade secrets, and then demonstrate that the information in those parts meets
the definition of a trade secret. If in order to show that the documents contain trade secrets
a party must make factual assertions about the nature of the documents and the harm
public disclosure might cause, the party should support those factual assertions with
appropriate affidavits or declarations.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that if a party believes that any sealed document in
the record pertaining to the parties’ motions for summary judgment (i.e., any document
2

mentioned in the motions to seal at ECF Nos. 90, 108, 133, 140 & 147) contains a trade
secret, that party shall file the statement described in the previous paragraph within thirty
days of the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motions to seal the documents filed in
connection with the motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of Larry W. Evans (ECF
Nos. 75 & 98) are GRANTED. The court denied the Evans motion as moot without
considering the sealed materials, and so those materials may remain sealed unless that
motion is renewed in the future.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 4th day of December 2012.

s/ Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3