Nordock Inc v. Systems Inc

Filing 202

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 5/30/2014. 201 Nordock's Motion to Seal GRANTED with respect to Exhibit F (Pilgrim's deposition) and DENIED with respect to Exhibit A (McGuire's deposition). Nordock MUST FILE in the public r ecord revised version of its opposition to motion for order to show cause that includes excerpts/information from McGuire's testimony. Clerk of Court DIRECTED TO FILE Exhibit A [199-12] in the public record. Any member of the public may challenge the sealing of any paper sealed pursuant to this Order. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NORDOCK, INC.,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,
v.

Case No. 11-C-118

SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant-Counterclaimant.

DECISION AND ORDER
Nordock, Inc. (“Nordock”) filed a motion to seal (ECF No. 201) pages three
through five and nine through eleven of its opposition to Defendant Systems Inc.’s
(“Systems”) motion for order to show cause (ECF. No. 199-11), and exhibits A and F
thereto.

The two exhibits are portions of the transcripts of Edward McGuire’s

(“McGuire”) April 17, 2012, and Mike Pilgrim’s (“Pilgrim”) April 18, 2012, depositions
that Systems has designated as confidential. (ECF Nos. 199-12, 199-13.)
McGuire’s deposition, Exhibit A, discloses fractional ownership information and
the identity of Systems’ owners. This Court previously concluded that the information is
not confidential.

(Court’s October 5, 2012, Decision & Order, 22.) (ECF No. 77.)

Nothing further has been offered in support of sealing. Thus, the Court will adhere to its
prior determination. Exhibit A will not be sealed, and Nordock must file a revised brief
that includes the ownership information.
Pilgrim’s deposition, Exhibit F, contains sales strategy—that type of information
is generally not available to the public. Having reviewed the Pilgrim deposition and the
portions of Nordock’s opposition that quote and/or include information from it, the Court

finds that good cause for sealing has been established. (See Court’s October 5, 2012,
Decision & Order, 15-16.) The sealing order will expressly provide that any party and
any interested member of the public may challenge the sealing of those papers. See Cnty.
Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007).
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Nordock’s motion to seal (ECF No. 201) pages three through five and nine
through eleven of its opposition to Systems’ motion for order to show cause and Exhibits
A and F is GRANTED with respect to Exhibit F and portions of the opposition that quote
from the Pilgrim transcript, and DENIED as to Exhibit A and portions of the opposition
that quote/include information from the McGuire transcript;
Nordock MUST FILE in the public record a revised version of its opposition that
includes excerpts/or information from McGuire’s testimony;
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO FILE exhibit A (ECF No. 199-12) in the
public record; and
Any member of the public MAY CHALLENGE the sealing of any paper sealed
pursuant to this Order.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 30th day of May, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge
-2-