The public's right of access to documents filed in connection with a dispositive pleading is sacrosanct. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that "the strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments," given that "the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc. , 990 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating that the "longstanding right" of access to judicial records and documents "helps secure the integrity and transparency of the judicial process"); In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. , 965 F.3d 1238, 1242 (11th Cir. 2020) ("A lawsuit is a public event. Parties who ask a court to resolve a dispute must typically walk in the public eye."); In re Cendant Corp. , 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (explaining that "[t]he public's right of access extends beyond simply the ability to attend open court proceedings" and includes "a pervasive common law right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “the strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments, ” given that “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (stating that the “longstanding right” of access to judicial records and documents “helps secure the integrity and transparency of the judicial process”); In re Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 965 F.3d 1238, 1242 (11th Cir. 2020) (“A lawsuit is a public event.

"Questions of our jurisdiction," such as the determination of whether the collateral order doctrine applies, "are governed by Federal Circuit law." DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

For example, where a district court denied requests to seal certain information, we applied the collateral order doctrine to permit interlocutory appeal because, among other things, "once the parties’ confidential information is made publicly available, it cannot be made secret again." Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. , 727 F.3d 1214, 1217, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (considering appeal of order "denying requests to seal various confidential exhibits attached to pretrial and post-trial motions"); see alsoDePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc. , 990 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (considering interlocutory appeal of order unsealing amended complaint). No such dire circumstances exist here.

See Vantage Health, 913 F.3d at 451. When the existence or magnitude of countervailing private interests turns on facts that are not readily apparent, the Court must have a concrete evidentiary basis for finding those facts. See IFG Port Holdings, 82 F.4th at 411-12 (refusing to rely on conclusory testimony about party's competitive interest); see also Tarver v. Allstate Texas Lloyd's, 2022 WL 704941, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 18, 2022), rep. & rec. adopted, 2022 WL 696358 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2022); In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 678-79 (3d Cir. 2019); DePuy Synthes Prod., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Interests that depend on project-specific, firm-specific, or industry-specific facts often will not be obvious and will require particularized evidentiary support.

Further, the vendors are not parties to confidentiality agreements. See Vol. 3, 111:14-113:7; DePuy Synthes Prod., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("Without any express agreement or other evidence of a confidential relationship . . . efforts to keep the Manufacturer Identity confidential are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to constitute 'reasonable efforts' within the meaning of the FUTSA.")

Because public access is so important to ensuring the transparency, integrity, and democratic legitimacy of the courts, “[t]here is . . . a ‘presumption that judicial records should be available to the public.'” DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1236 (11th Cir. 2013)). However, the common law right of access “is not absolute.”

Because public access is so important to ensuring the transparency, integrity, and democratic legitimacy of the courts, "[t]here is . . . a 'presumption that judicial records should be available to the public.' " DePuy Synthes Prods., Inc. v. Veterinary Orthopedic Implants, Inc., 990 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1236 (11th Cir. 2013)). However, the common law right of access "is not absolute."