W.S.R v. FCA US Llc
7:18-cv-06961
S.D.N.Y.Nov 10, 2021Background
- This action arises from W.S.R. (an infant) by his father William Richardson, and William and Nicole Richardson v. FCA US LLC, Yanfeng US Automotive Interior Systems I LLC, Adient PLC, Johnson Controls and related parties; multiple parties filed summary judgment motions with overlapping exhibits.
- FCA US moved to keep various exhibits filed by other parties under seal, identifying them as confidential business documents (purchase orders, contract terms, engineering test reports and standards, internal communications, and root-cause analyses).
- FCA submitted a declaration from Dave D. Valley describing why the exhibits are proprietary, how they were developed, and the competitive harm and economic disadvantage public disclosure would cause.
- FCA relied on the Court’s Protective Order and argued that Federal Rule 26(c) and the Lugosch/Amodeo balancing test support sealing trade secrets and confidential commercial information.
- The Court granted the sealing requests for FCA and for the other parties’ similar letter motions, including duplicates of exhibits previously moved to seal, and directed the Clerk to close the related docket entries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhibits containing business documents and engineering materials should be sealed | Parties requesting sealing (including FCA) argued the exhibits reveal proprietary, nonpublic commercial and engineering information and trade secrets that would harm competitiveness if public | Other parties implicitly asserted public-access presumption but no substantive opposition to sealing was recorded | Court applied the public-access balancing test and granted sealing of the identified exhibits |
| Standard for sealing judicial documents | Requesting parties argued protective order and Rule 26(c) permit sealing confidential commercial information | Public-access presumption requires balancing against privacy and competitive-harm concerns | Court relied on Lugosch/Amodeo framework and found competing considerations favored sealing |
| Whether previously sealed duplicate exhibits should remain sealed | FCA asked that duplicate exhibits filed by other parties be sealed for the same reasons given earlier | No contrary showing that duplicates should be public | Court granted sealing of duplicated exhibits consistent with earlier sealing determinations |
| Scope of documents warranting protection (POs, T&Cs, test reports, root-cause analyses, internal communications) | FCA described specific categories and asserted each contains proprietary processes, analyses, and market-sensitive information developed at cost | Absent a showing that public interest outweighs confidentiality, such categories can be protected | Court found the asserted categories sufficiently sensitive to justify sealing under the Protective Order and balancing test |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (articulates framework for balancing public access against competing interests for sealing judicial documents)
- Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2020) (recognizes public access presumption is not absolute)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (Supreme Court recognizes limited public right of access to judicial records)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (factors to weigh in sealing/judicial-document access inquiries)
- Prod. Res. Grp., L.L.C. v. Martin Pro., A/S, 907 F. Supp. 2d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (discusses sealing under Lugosch and protective orders)
- GoSMiLE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (allows sealing of highly proprietary marketing and product-development materials)
- In re Zyprexa Injunction, 474 F. Supp. 2d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (sealing warranted to protect confidential proprietary material and trade secrets)
- Gelb v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 813 F. Supp. 1022 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (competitors’ use of disclosed information can justify sealing)
- Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (older confidential business information can still yield competitive insights and support sealing)