IDT Corp v. AR Public Law Center
709 F.3d 1220
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- APLC sought to unseal a complaint in an antitrust suit against eBay, Skype, and Skype Technologies after a settlement in related patent cases.
- The district court sealed the complaint because it contained confidential information produced under protective orders.
- APLC intervened under Rule 24(b) to seek unsealing; the district court granted intervention but denied unsealing after in camera review.
- The court held that confidential, competitively sensitive information outweighed the public’s generalized access interest, and sealed the entire complaint.
- The panel vacated the order and remanded to consider redaction or unsealing a redacted version, noting possible portions could be public without exposing confidential information.
- Public access to the complaint would add little value since the court had no merits adjudication beyond a stipulated dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common-law right of access applies to the antitrust complaint | APLC—public access applies; parties waived broad exemption | Companies—confidential information warrants sealing | Common-law right applies; not waived |
| Whether district court abused discretion in sealing the entire complaint | Sealing warranted given confidential material | Sealing appropriate to protect sensitive information | No abuse; sealing upheld on balance but needs explanation for whole-seal |
| Whether redaction is a viable alternative to sealing the entire document | Redaction could preserve public access | Redaction may be impracticable or insufficient | Remand to assess redaction feasibility; unseal or redact appropriately |
| What weight the public’s interest in access should have in this case | Interests in an open court system | Public interest minimal for this document | Public access weight is low; supports sealing but warrants tailored redaction on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 F.2d 589 (2d Cir. 1978) (common-law right of access to judicial records; not absolute)
- Amodeo v. City of New York, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (weight of presumption depends on role of material in judicial power; may redact to preserve access)
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption of access to documents in civil cases; subject to balancing)