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

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 20, 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, and Legrand North America,                              
LLC,                                                                      

                              Defendants.                            


This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Continued Sealing (“Sealing 
Motion”) (ECF No. 224) regarding Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Amended Order on 
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (“Objections”) (ECF No. 201).  Plaintiff filed the Objections under 
temporary seal and simultaneously filed a public redacted version of the document.  (ECF No. 203.)  
The parties state that the redacted portions of the Objections should remain sealed because they 
contain “information derived from documents designated as confidential by a nonparty and 
Plaintiff.”  (ECF No. 224 at 1.)                                          
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 redacted portions of the Objections because
they contain information designated as “confidential.” As the Court explained in an Order
addressing the parties’ previous request to permanently seal documents (ECF No. 104), a party’s
mere designation of a document as “confidential” in discovery is not dispositive of whether it should
be sealed upon filing in the Court’s docket, which is presumptively open to the public. The Court
accordingly rejects the parties’ proffered rationale for sealing the redacted portions of the
Objections. But having carefully reviewed the redacted portions of the Objections, the Court finds
they refer to sensitive and confidential business information that the parties and third parties have

legitimate interests in protecting.
The Court further finds these interests are not outweighed by the public’s interest in
accessing the information. Although District Judge Nancy E. Brasel exercised Article III judicial
power in reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s decision, it was not to decide a dispositive issue in the
case. As such, the presumption of public access related to this analysis is not entitled to the same
weight that an exercise of Article III judicial power related to a merits-based motion would be given.
Willis v. Elect. Co., Ltd. 2019 WL at *1.
The Court concludes for these reasons that the parties’ legitimate interests in maintaining
confidentiality in the redacted portions of the Objections outweighs the public’s interest in unsealing
them. See, e.g., Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., Civ. No. 11-820 (JRT/HB),

2018 WL 2230920

, *1 (D. Minn. May 16, 2018) (sealing under LR 5.6 documents “contain[ing] 
information about [Plaintiff’s] financials”).

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. [224]) is 
GRANTED.  The Clerk is directed to keep ECF No. [201] under seal.         
Dated:  June 20, 2024         s/ Dulce J. Foster                          
                         DULCE J. FOSTER                             
                         United States Magistrate Judge