IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. : Case No. 1:22-cv-478 BURAK YAHSI : Judge Matthew W. McFarland Plaintiff/ Relator, : v. FESTO DIDACTIC, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Doc. 77).

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 77). For the reasons below, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 77) is GRANTED. Federal courts have long recognized a strong presumption in favor of openness which can only be overcome by “the most compelling reasons.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,

(6th Cir. 2016) (citing In re Knoxville News- Sentinel Co.,

(6th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, “[t]he burden of overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal them.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,

(6th Cir. 1983). “To meet this burden, the party must show three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the request is narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc.,

, 637 (6th Cir. 2019). To do so, the party must “analyze in detail, document by document, the

propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.”

(citing Shane Grp.,

). Defendant has shown a compelling reason for non-disclosure. The need to protect trade secrets can overcome the presumption of access. Shane Grp.,

. Moreover, this Court has repeatedly “recognized that protecting confidential information that would otherwise allow competitors an inside look at a company’s business strategies is a compelling reason to restrict public access to filings.” Ethicon Endo- Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-871,

, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2017); McCleese v. Natorp’s, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-118,

, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2022). Here, Defendant's request for leave to file exhibits to its Response in Opposition to Relator’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 62, 67) under seal is justified because the exhibits contain confidential business information that, if disclosed on the public docket, may harm the business interests of Defendant. The Court also finds that there will be little harm to the public interest if the listed exhibits are filed under seal, and that the request is narrowly tailored. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 77) is GRANTED. Defendant MAY FILE the materials identified in its motion under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Hsp, woe fad By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND