Opinion
1:19-cv-137 5:17-cv-2253
08-13-2024
AMERICAN CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAD BLASINGIM, et al., Defendants. MONARCH STEEL COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JAMES MCCRACKEN, et al., Defendants.
Thomas M. Parker Magistrate Judge
ORDER
J. Philip Calabrese United States District Judge
Previously, the Court provisionally permitted the briefs and exhibits related to Defendant's motion for summary judgment to be filed under seal, to allow time for the parties to agree on proposed redactions. (Blasingim ECF No. 264; McCracken ECF No. 132.) Plaintiffs propose redactions to their brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and propose sealing or redacting parts of the accompanying exhibits (Blasingim ECF No. 306-1; McCracken ECF No. 143-1.) Separately, Plaintiffs propose redacting sensitive information within Defendant's reply brief. (Blasingim ECF No. 310; McCracken ECF No. 146.)
On July 22, 2024, the Special Master filed a report recommending a plan to protect certain information contained in Plaintiffs' brief in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and accompanying exhibits. (Blasingim ECF No. 307; McCracken ECF No. 144.) With one exception, the Special Master recommends approving the redactions proposed by Plaintiff and sealing the five exhibits specified. (ECF No. 306-1, PagelD #15137-68; McCracken ECF No. 143-1, PagelD #5507-08.) Defendants do not object. (Blasingim ECF No. 307, PageID #15259; McCracken ECF No. 144, PageID #5597.)
Additionally, on August 12, 2024, the Special Master submitted a second Report and Recommendation, this time addressing proposed reactions to Defendant's reply in support of the motion for summary judgment. (Blasingim ECF No. 309; McCracken ECF No. 145.) In line with the Court's prior order, Defendant filed the reply brief under seal provisionally. (Blasingim ECF No. 308.) Plaintiff requests redactions to what it considers internal, highly sensitive information, such as names of customers, pricing, sales and revenue information, and contractual terms relating to non-parties. (See Blasingim ECF No. 310; McCracken ECF No. 146.) Defendant does not object to the redactions proposed by Plaintiffs (Blasingim ECF No. 309, PageID #15303; McCracken ECF No. 145, PageID #5606), and the Special Master also recommends allowing the proposed redactions. (Blasingim ECF No. 309, PageID #15306; McCracken ECF No. 145, PageID #5609.)
The Court finds that the parties' interest in protecting the confidential and proprietary information and the alleged trade secrets contained in the proposed sealed or redacted exhibits outweighs any public interest in access to that information. The Court also finds that the proposed sealing and redactions recommended by the Special Master, as related to both Plaintiff's brief in opposition and its exhibits, and Defendant's reply brief, are narrowly tailored to include only sensitive information. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Special Master's recommendations (Blasingim ECF Nos. 307 & 309; McCracken ECF Nos. 144 & 145), and ORDERS that action be taken to carry out those recommendations forthwith, and no later than August 26, 2024. Specifically, the parties shall file redacted versions of the briefs and exhibits as recommended.
SO ORDERED.