IDC Financial Publishing Inc v. BondDesk Group LLC et al

Filing 258

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 2/3/2021 GRANTING 257 Fidelity defendants' motion to restrict. Exhibits H and J to Declaration of Matthew M. Wuest at dkt. nos. 168-18 and 168-19 RESTRICTED to case participants until further order of the court. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

IDC FINANCIAL PUBLISHING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-1085-pp
v.
BONDDESK GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING FIDELITY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO RESTRICT
DOCUMENTS (DKT. NO. 257)

On April 10, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to dismiss the
case with prejudice. Dkt. No. 255. Three days later, defendants National
Financial Services, LLC (NFS) and Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC (collectively
“Fidelity”) filed a motion asking the court to maintain as restricted from public
view Exhibits H and J to the Declaration of Matthew M. Wuest (Dkt. Nos. 16818, 168-19).1 Dkt. No. 257.
The plaintiff moved to restrict these documents in April 2019, when they
were filed in support of the plaintiff’s motions in limine. Dkt. No. 160. The court
denied that motion without prejudice because it did not state good cause for
the request. Dkt. No. 236. But the court gave the parties the opportunity to
filed amended motions stating cause for the requested restrictions. Id. at 5. The

The motion mistakenly refers to Dkt. Nos. 168-8 and 168-10. Dkt. No. 257 at
1. Those documents are the redacted versions of the relevant documents. The
unredacted, confidential versions are at docket numbers 168-18 and 168-19.
1

1

plaintiff subsequently filed another motion to restrict Exhibit J. Dkt. No. 254. It
did not seek to restrict Exhibit H; it indicated that it originally had sought to
restrict that document “to keep certain customer names and contacts
confidential . . . based on [a non-party’s] confidentiality designations.” Id. at 2
n.1. It indicated that “because [the non-party] has withdrawn its designations
and the information is already in the public record, [the plaintiff] does not seek
to file Exhibit H as redacted.” Id. The court did not rule on this motion because
the parties filed the stipulation of dismissal the next day.
In the motion filed after dismissal of the case, Fidelity explains that the
documents are deposition transcripts containing Fidelity customer names. Id.
at 1. It says that it made “substantial efforts to keep its customer information
and the names of individuals associated with its customers confidential.” Id. at
2. Fidelity claims that disclosure of this information would “cause competitive
harm to Fidelity,” “invade the privacy of Fidelity customers” and would violate
the spirit of Fidelity’s obligations under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and
implementing regulations. Id. at 2–3. Fidelity also argues that the public
interest in the documents is weaker here because the documents were filed as
exhibits to a mooted motion in limine. Id. at 3 (citing KM Enterprises, Inc. v.
Glob. Traffic Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d 718, 734 (7th Cir. 2013) (finding that
granting motion to return documents to district court for sealing “is
appropriate when they are not among ‘the materials that formed the basis of
the parties’ dispute and the district court’s resolution.’”)). The defendants
indicate that they do not object to the majority of the content of the documents
2

being available to the public, as long as the customer names (redacted from
Dkt. Nos. 168-8 and 168-10) remain restricted to viewing by the parties.
The court regrets that it has not ruled on a motion filed almost ten
months ago; the court is responsible for the delay, having missed the fact that
a party had filed a motion after closure of the case. Neither the plaintiff nor the
other defendants have objected to the motion. While the court notes that the
defendants did not take the court up on its offer to seek restriction of the
customer names while the litigation was pending, it agrees that because the
court did not rely on the restricted information in making any substantive
rulings, and because the case was resolved by stipulation rather than by any
substantive ruling from by the court, there is likely little public interest in the
restricted information.
The court GRANTS the Fidelity defendants’ motion to restrict. Dkt. No.
257. The court ORDERS that, under General L.R. 79(d), Exhibits H and J to
the Declaration of Matthew M. Wuest (Dkt. Nos. 168-18, 168-19) shall be
RESTRICTED to case participants until further order of the court.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 3rd day of February, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge

3