Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-3919 (FLW).
February 4, 2008
ORDER
This matter having been opened to the Court upon Motion by Defendant Method Products, Inc. ("Method"), for an Order sealing Method's brief and the declaration of John W. Crittenden filed in support of Method's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer, as well as Plaintiff's opposition brief to that motion and Method's reply brief along with the declarations that will be filed therewith [Docket Entry No. 19]; and Method arguing that the documents it seeks to seal contain confidential business information about Plaintiff's customers and potential customers that Plaintiff strongly believes should remain confidential; and Method further arguing that Plaintiff has a legitimate business interest in keeping information regarding its customers and potential customers confidential and that Plaintiff's business interests would be harmed if the public were able to access Plaintiff's confidential information regarding its customers and potential customers; and Method further arguing that there is no less restrictive alternative available because Method does not seek to seal all proceedings in the matter, but only those documents that contain the aforementioned confidential business information; and there being no opposition to Method's Motion; and the Court finding that the Third Circuit recognizes "a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records" (In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001)); and the Court further finding that there is "a presumptive right of public access to pretrial motions of a nondiscovery nature, whether preliminary or dispositive, and the material filed in connection therewith" (Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 164 (3d Cir. 1993)); and the Court further finding that the right of public access is "not absolute[,]" but must be weighed against the litigants interests in secrecy (Id. at 165 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); and the Court further finding that under L.Civ.R. 5.3(c)(2) a party seeking an Order to seal materials must
describe (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought, (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.
(L.Civ.R. 5.3(c)(2)); and the Court further finding that Method has adequately described the nature of the materials at issue as the confidential business information about Plaintiff's customers and potential customers that is contained in Method's brief and the declaration of John W. Crittenden filed in support of its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, and will likely be contained in Plaintiff's opposition brief to that motion and Method's reply brief along with the declarations that will be filed therewith; and the Court further finding that information concerning Plaintiff's customers and potential customers is not publicly available; and the Court further finding that Plaintiff's legitimate business interests would be harmed if competitors gained access to Plaintiff's confidential business information concerning its customers and potential customers; and the Court further finding that while Method argues that it does not believe there to be a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought, Method fails to establish why it cannot practically seal only those portions of its brief and the declaration of John W. Crittenden that contain information regarding Plaintiff's customers and potential customers, rather than both of those documents in their entirety; and the Court further finding that despite this failure, given Plaintiff's legitimate business interests in having this information remain confidential, coupled with the competitive harm that would befall Plaintiff if it were disclosed, Method's brief as well as the declaration of John W. Crittenden shall remain sealed pending additional briefing as described below; and the Court further finding that while it appreciates the parties' efforts to litigate efficiently, because L. Civ. R. 5.3(c) is concerned with restricting public access to documents, the Court cannot (without running afoul of the spirit of the Rule) grant a sealing order that pertains to documents like Method's opposition or Plaintiff's reply briefs or the declarations submitted therewith, which have yet to be filed with the Court and indeed, whose contents have likely yet to be finalized by the parties; and the Court further finding that while it cannot at this juncture grant a motion to seal with respect to those documents, when either Method or Plaintiff moves to seal one or more of them in the future, they can do so by simply filing a notice of motion, along with a declaration that references the Court's findings regarding Plaintiff's confidential business information concerning its customers and potential customers, and explaining what relief they seek and why there is no less restrictive alternative; and the Court having considered this matter pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 78, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 1st day of February, 2008,
ORDERED that Method's Motion to Seal its brief and the declaration of John W. Crittenden filed in support of its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pending supplementation of the record as follows: Method shall have until February 8, 2008 to supplement the record with either (a) an amended request to seal only those portions of its brief and the declaration of John W. Crittenden that contain information concerning Plaintiff's customers and/or potential customers or (b) an explanation as to why it is not practical to seek this less restrictive alternative; and it is further
ORDERED that until further action is taken by the Court, Method's brief and the declaration of John W. Crittenden filed in support of its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer shall remain sealed on the Court's docket; and it is further
ORDERED that Method's Motion to Seal Plaintiff's opposition brief to its motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, as well as Method's reply brief and all declarations submitted therewith is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refile in accordance with the instructions provided in this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court terminate this Motion [Docket Entry No. 19] accordingly.