Hribar Transport LLC v. Slegers
2:20-cv-01255
E.D. Wis.Sep 1, 2022Background:
- Plaintiff: Hribar Transport LLC; Defendant: Michael Slegers. Defendant filed an unopposed motion to seal and restrict Dkt. Nos. 44–47 (≈800 pages) submitted in support of his summary judgment motion.
- The contested filings include declarations, ~30 exhibits, proposed findings of fact, and the defendant’s summary-judgment brief.
- The parties had a discovery protective order and had designated many documents as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY." The defendant relied on those designations in seeking sealing.
- Court applied Eastern District L.R. 79(d)(3) and Seventh Circuit precedent requiring independent factual showing of good cause to withhold documents from the public record.
- Court found the motion lacked the required factual showing (the parties’ agreement and generic labels were insufficient), explained difference between sealing (court-only access) and restricting (limited access to case participants), denied the motion without prejudice, and gave the defendant until Sept. 16, 2022 to file a proper motion to restrict; meanwhile the Clerk temporarily restricted access until that date.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective-order designation alone justifies sealing court filings | Supports sealing Dkts. 44–47 under the parties' protective order | Relies on confidentiality designations and says filings contain financial/proprietary data | Denied: protective-order labeling alone is inadequate; must show independent good cause per local rule and Circuit law |
| Whether the filings contain protectable information (trade secrets or similar) | Asks documents be sealed without detailed identification | Asserts documents contain financial and proprietary information but provides no specific factual showing | Denied: generalized assertions insufficient to demonstrate categories entitled to long-term secrecy |
| Whether the filing was properly styled as a motion to "seal" versus a motion to "restrict" access | Plaintiff sought sealing under protective order | Defendant filed a motion to seal but likely intended a motion to restrict access to case participants | Court noted the distinction; directed defendant may file a proper motion to restrict; denied sealing motion without prejudice |
| Remedy and timing for public access pending further motion | Agrees filings remain confidential under order | Requests sealing/restriction without further factual support | Court temporarily restricted access to parties and the court until Sept. 16, 2022; if no timely motion, Clerk will make documents public |
Key Cases Cited
- Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (protective-order confidentiality does not automatically justify sealing; court must independently assess good cause)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (limits on public access to discovery via protective orders are permissible pretrial)
- Grove Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.) (certain discovery may be sealed only in narrow categories)
- In re Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d 1302 (7th Cir.) (judicial-record access principles regarding sealing and confidentiality)
- Composite Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Van Der Woude, 962 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.) (requirement to analyze whether documents contain protectable secrets before sealing)
- Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2013) (documents affecting disposition of litigation are presumptively open to public view)