Opinion
4:23-cv-1192-DPM
04-05-2024
DWBI INVESTMENTS, LLC PLAINTIFF/ COUNTERDEFENDANT v. SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C. DEFENDANT/ COUNTERCLAIMANT/ CROSS-CLAIMANT v. DAVID DENNIS; DENNIS FOOD GROUP, LLC; LEPHIEW GIN COMPANY, INC.; TYSON FOODS, INC.; LEPHIEW DENNINGTON; TYSON SALES AND DISTRIBUTION, INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.; BENJAMIN MCCORKLE; BEACON LEGAL GROUP, PLLC; TIMOTHY DUDLEY; RICKEY HICKS; and GARY, WILLIAMS, PARENTI, WATSON, GARY & GILLESPIE, P.L.L.C. DEFENDANTS/ CROSS-DEFENDANTS
ORDER
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge
The Court has reviewed the settlement agreement and Tyson's proposed redacted version of Doc. 9. The agreement's confidentiality provision is not enough to justify sealing any documents that include its terms. If the agreement or other documents containing its terms are filed as this case progresses, the bank account information can be redacted. And because the Court has determined that the agreement is not confidential, redaction of Doc. 9 is unnecessary. The Court directs the Clerk to unlock Doc. 9 and restore it to the public docket.
SO ORDERED.