Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131126
D. Mass.2012Background
- New York Times Company seeks to intervene under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) and to unseal the Fifth Amended Complaint filed June 14, 2012 under a protective order.
- A First Amended Stipulated Protective Order (2009) governs discovery, permitting designation of confidential or highly confidential material and restricting disclosures.
- The Complaint incorporates discovery information but contains no attached exhibits; discovery documents cited were not filed as exhibits.
- Defendants oppose unsealing, arguing the public access presumption does not apply to cited discovery materials and that confidential information should remain sealed.
- The court recognizes a common-law presumption of public access to judicial documents and must weigh this against private interests; it also notes the need for more particularized showings of harm from disclosure.
- The court allows Defendants to submit a second redacted Fifth Amended Complaint within 21 days, with a memorandum addressing specific harms and tailoring redactions, after which the court will decide whether to unseal or maintain redactions SO ORDERED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the public access presumption applies to the Complaint and its text. | NYT argues presumption applies to the Complaint. | Defendants contend the presumption does not extend to cited discovery materials. | Presumption applies to the Complaint text; discovery materials not subject. |
| Whether the documents cited in the Complaint are exhibits and thus subject to access. | Cited documents are part of the record treated for access. | Cited documents are discovery materials not filed as exhibits. | Citations are not exhibits; not subject to presumption. |
| Whether redactions in the Complaint overcome the presumption of access. | N/A | Redactions lack particularized showing of harm and are not narrowly tailored. | Court cannot balance on current record; requires more particularized showing in second redacted filing. |
| Whether intervention to challenge sealing is properly granted under Rule 24(b). | New York Times seeks limited intervention to challenge sealing. | Defense supports intervention only for the challenge to sealing. | Intervention granted for limited challenge to sealing. |
| What procedural steps follow for potential unsealing. | N/A | Provide detailed justification for redactions and harm. | Defendants to file second redacted Complaint within 21 days with supporting memorandum; court will decide later. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404 (1st Cir. 1987) (presumption of public access to judicial documents; balancing required)
- Siedle v. Putnam Invs., Inc., 147 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1998) (public access applies to materials the court relies on; not unfettered)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (S. Ct. 1978) (balancing test for public access; burden on those seeking to seal)
- Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1986) (presumption applies to allegations in complaint; discovery materials generally excluded)
- In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 1983) (compelling reasons required to overcome public access)
- Pub. Citizen v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 858 F.2d 775 (1st Cir. 1988) (limited intervention to challenge sealing)