In Hyundai Mtr. Am., Inc. v. Midwest Indus. Supply Co., No. 2:17-cv-03010-JCM-GWF, 2019 WL 2411420 (D. Nev. June 6, 2019) (Foley , USMJ), both the defendants and the plaintiffs filed motions to seal testimony and evidence.
Both sides said that they had stipulated to this secrecy. Both sides said that they had "good cause" to seal this evidence.
In their requests to seal testimony and other evidence, the defendants said:
Defendants represent that such filings contain confidential and proprietary information designated as confidential or for “attorney's eyes only” pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order. Further, Defendants represent that [one of the witnesses' testimony] contains confidential settlement discussions.
Hyundai Motor America, 2019 WL 2411420 at *1.
Likewise, along with their own requests to seal testimony and other evidence, the plaintiffs said:
Plaintiffs represent that the above documents contain confidential, sensitive and non-public information and is designated as confidential under the parties' stipulated protective order.
Hyundai Motor America, 2019 WL 2411420 at *1.
The Magistrate Judge ruled that the parties had shown good cause to seal neither the testimony nor the documentary evidence that they wanted to keep from public view. The testimony and the documents had been filed in support of dispositive motions, motions more than "tangentially related" to the issues in the case. The presumption of public access to court files trumped the parties' stipulation in this case.
So far. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties in this case until Monday, June 17 to file more motions to seal.
Stay tuned. Until then, the presumption of public access to evidence that judges rely on in their rulings -- at the request of the same parties that want to keep the evidence secret even though they ask the judge to rule on it -- is prevailing.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments