After documents have been made available to the public, it will be difficult to overcome the presumption of public access and seal them.[1]
This difficulty was apparently not an obstacle in a decision reported neither in Federal Supplement or in Westlaw: Loy v. BMW of North America, LLC.[2] Following the entry of a previous order in the case,[3] the Court conducted an in camera inspection and denied plaintiffs' motion to compel.[4] In the course of denying the motion to compel, the Court also denied the plaintiffs' request to remove the confidential designation from certain materials previously presented at a conference.
The Court noted in its slipsheet opinion that these documents which BMW marked "Confidential," were slides "presented during a conference in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2018[.]"[5]
[1] See Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Michael Baker Int'l, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00881, 2023 WL 2504575, at *12 (D. Utah March 14, 2023) (Oberg, USMJ).
[2] Loy v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00184 JAR, slip op. (E.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2021). This is Document No. 112 in the Court File, available on PACER.
[3] Loy v. BMW of N. Am., No. 4:19-CV-00184 JAR, 2021 WL 3930501 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 2, 2021).
[4] Loy v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00184 JAR, slip op. at 2 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2021).
[5] Loy v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-00184 JAR, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2021).
The how and why and best practices of Stipulated Protective Orders and their secrecy protections in particular, are examined in first-party case law in 2 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH § 9:28.50 (3d Edition West Publishing Company, 2023 Supplements in process). These issues arising in third-party cases are discussed in 1 id., § 3:107.50.
Please read the disclaimer. This blog article ©2023 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments