The Whitestone Group, Inc. v. Excalibur Associates, Inc., 2:22-cv-00551

Plaintiff The Whitestone Group, Inc. filed a Motion to File Documents Under Seal for two exhibits to its complaint: Exhibit B (a non-disclosure agreement) and Exhibit D (a proposal submitted to NIST).
Defendant Excalibur Associates, Inc. does not oppose the sealing motion.
The court applied the Sixth Circuit sealing framework (Shane Group): movant bears a heavy burden to show a compelling interest, that it outweighs public access, and that the request is narrowly tailored.
After in camera review, the court found Exhibit B (the NDA) did not disclose trade secrets and resembled a routine protective agreement, so sealing was denied for that exhibit.
The court found Exhibit D (the NIST proposal) contained extensive proprietary information (pricing, hiring/training, marketing strategy) amounting to trade secrets; redaction was impracticable and no overriding public interest favored disclosure, so sealing was granted for that exhibit.
The plaintiff was ordered to file the unsealed and sealed exhibits consistent with the opinion within seven days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Exhibit B (NDA) should be sealed	NDA contains confidential/proprietary terms and should be kept secret	Excalibur does not oppose sealing	Denied — NDA contains no trade secrets; resembles a standard protective agreement; no compelling interest to seal
Whether Exhibit D (NIST proposal) should be sealed	Proposal contains sensitive pricing, procedures, training, and marketing strategy that would harm competitive position	Excalibur does not oppose sealing	Granted — proposal contains trade secrets; disclosure would cause competitive harm; redaction infeasible; no countervailing public interest

Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) (articulates heavy burden and three-part test for sealing court records)
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) (recognizes trade secrets as exception to public access)
Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2002) (distinguishes discovery confidentiality from public court records)
Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., [citation="767 F. App'x 635"] (6th Cir. 2019) (discusses balancing public interest against sealing and compelling reasons requirement)
Handel's Enters., Inc. v. Schulenberg, [citation="765 F. App'x 117"] (6th Cir. 2019) (defines trade secret elements and factors to consider)