Opinion
1:23-cv-294
09-07-2023
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOC. 42, 43]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
In this patent infringement matter, Plaintiff Woodstream Corporation moved for a stipulated entry of a protected order.Defendant Nature's Way moved for leave to file under seal its Markham response brief and accompanying exhibits, pursuant to the stipulated protective order.Both parties subsequently filed Markham briefs with redacted materials.
Doc. 42.
Doc. 43.
Doc. 44, 45.
The Sixth Circuit applies a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. The burden of overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal the records.This party must show that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury.” Only “'trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege . . . and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence . . .' is typically enough to overcome the presumption of access.” In light of this standard, the scope of Plaintiff's proposed protective order is overbroad.
Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)).
Id.
Id. at 307 (citing In re Cedent Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (6th Cir. 1983)).
Id. at 308 (citing Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002)).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a protective order, with the modifications described in the attached order. The Court ORDERS the Parties to refile the unredacted versions of their Markham briefs under seal. The Court further ORDERS Defendants to file an explanation with the Court by September 11, 2023 why the material redacted in the parties' Markham briefs is a trade secret and, if relevant to the Court's decision, why the redacted material shouldn't be placed on the Court's open docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.