Feed.Ing BV v. Principle Solutions LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 10/20/2014 DENYING 33 Motion to Seal Document. Clerk of Court DIRECTED TO FILE [32-1 through 32-7] in the public record. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

FEED.ING BV,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-C-1241

PRINCIPLE SOLUTIONS, LLC;
PRINCIPLE INVESTMENTS, INC.;
KEVIN M. ZIMMER; GCAM, LLC;
GCAM-R, LLC; KEVIN M. ZIMMER
AND AMY E. ZIMMER REVOCABLE
TRUST; and KEVIN ZIMMER AND
AMY ZIMMER IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES OF THE
KEVIN M. ZIMMER AND AMY
E. ZIMMER REVOCABLE TRUST,
Defendants,
and
COMMERCE STATE BANK
Proposed Intervenor.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Principle
Solutions, LLC (“Principle”) to seal (ECF No. 33) documents attached to
the affidavit of Defendant Kevin Zimmer (“Zimmer”): (1) Loan summaries
for Principle, and Defendants GCAM, LLC and GCAM-R, LLC; (2) a closing

statement for the purchase and sale of the Plover, Wisconsin warehouse;
(3) an internal financial document related to the closing of the purchase
and sale of the Plover, Wisconsin warehouse; (4) a commercial loan
Agreement between Commerce State Bank and Principle; (5) a copy of the
lease for a restaurant located in West Bend, Wisconsin; and (6) a certificate
of occupancy for the Zimmer home located in West Bend, Wisconsin. (ECF
Nos. 32-1 through 32-7.)

Principle states “most such documents are

confidential and non-public in nature” and that its request is “reasonable”
and “narrowly tailored under the circumstances.” (Mot. 2.)
Because court proceedings are presumptively public a party seeking
to seal bears the burden of establishing “good cause” on a document-bydocument basis. Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 545-46
(7th Cir. 2002); see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G); Gen. L.R. 26(d)(4) (E.D.
Wis.). The presumption applies when the documents affect the disposition
of federal litigation. See Goesel v. Boley Int’l (H.K.), Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 833
(7th Cir. 2013). Contentions similar to those asserted by Principle have
been resoundingly rejected as insufficient to establish “good cause.” See
Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000) (stating
“[t]his is not the first time we have encountered requests to seal
proceedings in order to implement the parties' preference for seclusion,”
-2-

and collecting cases); See also, Baxter Int’l, Inc., 297 F.3d at 546 (citing
Composite Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Van Der Woude, 962 F.2d 1263, 1266
(7th Cir. 1992) (a litigant must do more than just identify a kind of
information and demand secrecy)).
Principle has not established “good cause” for sealing the proffered
documents. Therefore, Principle’s motion to seal (ECF No. 33) is DENIED
and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO FILE the documents (ECF Nos.
32-1 through 32-7) in the public record.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of October, 2014.
SO ORDERED:

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

-3-