COX v. SHERMAN CAPITAL LLC
1:12-cv-01654
S.D. Ind.Oct 10, 2014Background
- This case concerns Defendants’ Motion to Unseal Portions of Amended Complaint in an FDCPA/RICO suit brought by Cox and others.
- A May 2013 protective order allowed filing under seal only for good cause and not merely because information was designated confidential.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint under seal in September 2014 after partial grant/denial of prior sealing motions.
- Defendants seek to maintain the amended complaint under seal or redact specific portions; they attach a redacted proposed version.
- The court denies the motion to seal portions and orders unsealing the entirety of the amended complaint.
- The court reiterates that sealing requires detailed, document-by-document justification under controlling Seventh Circuit standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether good cause supports sealing under the protective order. | Plaintiffs argue against sealing, emphasizing public access. | Defendants contend sealing is necessary for confidentiality of ownership and inner workings. | Denied; insufficient detailed justification to seal. |
| whether information on ownership/management and inner workings should be sealed. | Cox plaintiffs oppose sealing these details. | Defendants claim harm from disclosure of competitive and transactional details. | Denied; vague, non-specific rationale insufficient. |
| Whether to seal exhibits attached to the complaint. | Plfs oppose sealing exhibits to maintain transparency. | Defendants seek to seal exhibits due to confidentiality. | Denied; no adequate justification. |
| Whether the amended complaint should be unsealed in whole. | Unsealing aligns with public access to court filings. | Sealing necessary to protect confidential information. | Denied; court unseals the amended complaint. |
| Whether the Clerk should unseal the entire amended complaint. | Public interest supports full unsealing. | Confidentiality outweighs public interest in this context. | Granted; Clerk to unseal the entirety. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (sealing requires detailed, document-by-document justification; mere confidentiality designation is insufficient)
- Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 1999) (public access interest and duty to review sealing requests)