The Procter & Gamble Company v. Ranir, LLC, 1:17-cv-00185

P&G sued Ranir for patent infringement related to tooth-whitening strips and sought a preliminary injunction; Ranir moved to dismiss for improper venue and the court later granted dismissal.
Ranir initially filed its opposition to the preliminary-injunction motion entirely under seal, citing reliance on P&G discovery documents labeled confidential.
P&G sought sealing/redactions for portions of Ranir’s Opposition and filed its own Reply under seal with a redacted public version.
Ranir opposed P&G’s sealing of the Reply and concurrently asked the court to unseal Ranir’s Opposition and to deny Ranir’s own motion to seal a proposed sur-reply.
The district court reviewed competing sealing motions under the Sixth Circuit’s “compelling reasons” and narrow-tailoring standard; the case was later dismissed for improper venue, rendering the preliminary-injunction dispute moot but prompting the court to resolve sealing to preserve public access principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ranir’s Opposition should remain sealed	P&G: Opp. contains trade secrets, market/sales, strategy; needs redactions to protect competitive harm	Ranir: originally filed sealed to honor P&G designations but later asked to unseal its Opposition entirely	Court denied Ranir’s unseal request; granted P&G’s proposed redactions and ordered a redacted public version be filed
Whether P&G’s Reply should be sealed	P&G: Reply contains confidential sales, marketing, formulas, and agreement provisions; sealing narrowly tailored to protect harm	Ranir: opposed sealing (argued some material not entitled to seal)	Court granted P&G’s sealing request; redacted Reply remains public, full Reply under seal
Whether Ranir’s proposed Sur‑Reply should be sealed	Ranir sought leave to file full Sur‑Reply under seal, but also filed a public redacted version	P&G opposed unsealing of some materials; dispute became moot after dismissal	Motion to file Sur‑Reply under seal denied as moot because the underlying injunction motion was denied as moot
Applicability of Sixth Circuit sealing standard	P&G: sealing justified by compelling competitive harm and narrow tailoring	Ranir: some disclosures not entitled to seal; public access presumed	Court applied Sixth Circuit standard—required compelling reasons and narrow tailoring—and found P&G met the standard for the limited redactions

Klingenberg v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Co., [citation="658 F. App'x 202"] (6th Cir. 2016) (district court sealing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion but with less deference due to public‑access concerns)
Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (establishes "compelling reasons" and narrow‑tailoring requirement for sealing court records)
Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589 (6th Cir. 2016) (parties cannot waive public’s right of access; movant must justify sealing even if parties agree)