R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc. v. Focal Point, L.L.C.

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota October 23, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

R. L. Mlazgar Associates, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-942 (NEB/DJF)

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

Focal Point, LLC, Legrand North America LLC,
and Legrand Holding, Inc.,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing (“Sealing
Motion”) (ECF No. 283) as to Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Response to Defendants’ Motion for a
Protective Order to Preclude the Deposition of Hoyt Webb (“Response”) (ECF No. 246) and various
related exhibits (“Exhibits”) (ECF Nos. 247-6, 247-7, 247-8, 247-14, 247-15). Plaintiff filed the
Response and Exhibits under temporary seal and simultaneously filed a public redacted version of
each document. (ECF Nos. 248, 249-11, 249-12, 249-13, 249-14, 249-15.)
The parties agree that the redacted portions of the Response should remain sealed because it
contains references to the Exhibits and “deposition transcripts designated as confidential by
Defendants.” (ECF No. 283 at 2-3.) They further agree that the documents filed at ECF
Nos. 247-6, 247-7, and 247-8 should remain sealed because they contain confidential financial
information. (Id. at 1-2.) The parties disagree whether the documents filed at ECF No. 247-14 and
247-15 should remain sealed. (Id. at 2.) According to the Sealing Motion, the document filed at
ECF No. 247-15 is an “email designated as attorney-client privileged” and the document filed at
ECF No. 247-14 is a deposition excerpt that discusses the “email designated as attorney-client
privileged”. The email filed at document 247-15 references an “attached contract” but the contract is
not included as part of the document. (See 247-15.)
Parties may seal documents in a civil case “only as provided by statute or rule, or with leave
of court.” L.R. 5.6(a)(1). “There is a common-law right of access to judicial records.” IDT Corp. v.
eBay,

709 F.3d 1220

, 1222–23 (8th Cir. 2013) (citing  Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,

435 U.S. 589, 597

 (1978)).  Notwithstanding, the right of access is not absolute and requires the Court to 

balance the competing interests of public access against the moving party’s legitimate interests in 
maintaining confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed.  Id. at 1123.  “[T]he weight to be 
given to the presumption of [public] access must be governed by the role of the material at issue in 
the exercise of Article III judicial power and resultant value of such information to those monitoring 
the federal courts.”  Id. at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo,

71 F.3d 1044, 1049

 (2d 
Cir. 1995)).  Non-dispositive motions generally are afforded a lower or weaker presumption of public 
access than proceedings in which a district judge exercises Article III power to determine the merits 
of a case.  See Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited (Macao Commercial Offshore) et 
al. 15-cv-3443 (WMW-KMM),

2019 WL 2574979

, *1 (D. Minn. June 24, 2019) (quoting Krueger 
v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., No. 11-cv2781 (SRN/JSM),

2014 WL 12597948

, at *8 (D. Minn. 

Oct. 14, 2014)).                                                          
The parties ask the Court to permanently seal the documents filed at ECF Nos. 247-6, 247-7, 
and 247-8 because they contain confidential financial information.  (Id. at 1-2.)  The Court agrees 
that continued sealing of these documents is appropriate because the parties have a legitimate 
interest in protecting the information that is not outweighed by the public’s right to access.  See, e.g, 
Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., Civ. No. 11-820 (JRT/HB), 2018 WL2230920, 
*1 (D. Minn. May 16, 2018) (sealing under LR 5.6 documents “contain[ing] information about 
[Plaintiff’s]  financials”);  see  also  IDT  Corp.,

709 F.3d at 1221

(finding sensitive business
information subject to continued sealing).
The Court further agrees the documents filed at ECF Nos. 247-14 and 247-15 warrant
continued sealing based on Defendants’ claim that they are attorney-client privileged. The email is a
communication regarding a legal issue among Defendants’ executives and Mr. Webb, Defendant
Legrand Holding, Inc.’s General Counsel, and the deposition transcript reflects testimony related to

the email. The email thus appears to be privileged on its face. But the email is the subject of an
apparently continuing dispute about whether Defendants waived attorney-client privilege by
disclosing the email in discovery, or whether—as Defendants contend—no waiver occurred because
the disclosure was inadvertent and Defendants appropriately attempted to claw it back. (See, e.g.,
ECF No. 282 at 8-14.) As the Court stated previously on the record during the hearing on
Defendants’ motion to preclude Mr. Webb’s deposition, this issue has not been briefed sufficiently
for the Court to decide the ultimate question of whether Defendants waived privilege with respect to
the email at issue or not. (See, e.g., ECF No. 282 at 42-43.) However, the Court finds Defendants
have provided sufficient justification for continuing to seal these documents at this time, particularly
in light of the weaker presumption of public access applicable to materials filed in support of non-

dispositive motions. If the Court were to find later that a privilege waiver occurred, such that the
documents filed at Nos. 247-14 and 247-15 are not subject to the attorney-client privilege, then
either party may move to unseal the documents at that time.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing (ECF No. 283) is 
GRANTED and the Clerk of Court is directed to keep the documents filed at ECF Nos. 247-6, 247-
7, 247-8, 247-14 and 247-15 under seal.                                   
Dated:  October 23, 2024      s/ Dulce J. Foster                          
                         DULCE J. FOSTER                             
                         United States Magistrate Judge