Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, Inc.
Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, Inc.
2019 WL 11663795 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)
March 27, 2019
Pollak, Cheryl L., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court determined that the documents at issue were judicial documents, and thus a common law right of public access attached. The court weighed the private interests advanced against the public interest in judicial documents and determined that the public's presumptive right of access should not be defeated. The court directed that any trade secrets, such as pricing information or other internal business communications, may be redacted before being filed on the public docket.
Additional Decisions
UNI-SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION, INC., ROSSETTI INC., HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLC, HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLP, MORGAN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., and GEIGER ENGINEERS, P.C., Defendants
v.
UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION, INC., ROSSETTI INC., HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLC, HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLP, MORGAN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., and GEIGER ENGINEERS, P.C., Defendants
17 CV 147 (KAM) (CLP)
United States District Court, E.D. New York
Filed March 27, 2019
Counsel
Brandy S. Nolan, Pro Hac Vice, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Dallas, TX, James Reed, Michelle Erica Wang, Allen & Overy LLP, Susan L. Ross, Victoria Vance Corder, Paul B. Keller, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, NY, James G. Warriner, Pro Hac Vice, Sean Patrick McGinley, Pro Hac Vice, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Austin, TX, David H. Ben-Meir, Pro Hac Vice, John A. O'Malley, Pro Hac Vice, Michelle L. Mello, Pro Hac Vice, for Plaintiff.Eleanor Yost, Carlton Fields, PA, Tampa, FL, Eric D. Coleman, Pro Hac Vice, Akerman, LLP, Miami, FL, Ethan Horwitz, Carlton Fields, P.A., Vitaly David Rivkin, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, New York, NY, for Defendant United States Tennis Association, Inc.
Eleanor Yost, Pro Hac Vice, Carlton Fields, PA, Tampa, FL, Eric D. Coleman, Pro Hac Vice, Akerman, LLP, Miami, FL, Ethan Horwitz, Carlton Fields, P.A., Vitaly David Rivkin, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, New York, NY, John Coy Stull, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, Washington, DC, William A. DeVan, Pro Hac Vice, Constructionlex, PLC, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant Hunt Construction Group, Inc.
Dyan M. Finguerra-DuCharme, Jeffrey L. Snow, Joseph Vincent Micali, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York, NY, Suzanne M. Parker, Pro Hac Vice, KDB PLLC, Marblehead, MA, for Defendants Hardesty & Hanover LLC, Hardesty & Hanover LLP.
Pasquale A. Razzano, Seth Boeshore, Venable LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Geiger Engineers, P.C.
Eleanor Yost, Carlton Fields, PA, Tampa, FL, John Coy Stull, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, Washington, DC, for Defendant United States Tennis Association National Tennis Center Incorporated.
Joshua David Curry, Pro Hac Vice, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Atlanta, GA, David M. Pollack, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Matthew L. Rossetti Architect, P.C.
Pasquale A. Razzano, Venable LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Geiger Gossen Campbell Engineers, P.C.
Pollak, Cheryl L., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Plaintiff Uni-Systems, LLC brings this action against the United States Tennis Association, Inc. (“USTA”), Rossetti, Inc. (“Rossetti”), Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (“Hunt”), Hardesty & Hanover LLC and Hardesty & Hanover LLP (collectively “Hardesty”), Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc. (“Morgan”), and Geiger Engineers, P.C. (“Geiger”) (collectively, “defendants”), asserting a variety of patent infringement claims against all defendants, as well as trade secret claims and an unfair competition claim against Hardesty and Hunt (the “Trade Secret Defendants”), all flowing from defendants’ involvement in the construction and maintenance of certain retractable stadium roofs.
There are currently three motions to seal pending before this Court. The substance of the discovery disputes at issue in the letter motions to seal were previously addressed by this Court in its November 27, 2018 Order. (See 11/27/18 Order).[1] The instant Order deals only with the requests to seal certain documents in connection with those discovery motions.
The first motion to seal was filed by plaintiff on June 11, 2018 in connection with plaintiff's June 11, 2018 letter motion to compel. In addition to seeking to seal the letter motion, plaintiff also seeks to seal two exhibits to its letter, Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6. (Pl.’s 6/11 /18 Mot. at 1).[2] Exhibit 5 is a letter from Uni-Systems to Hunt dated July 24, 2009, and Exhibit 6 is a copy of an email from Hunt to “various recipients including Hunt employees,” dated July 30, 2009. (Id. at 1-2). Both the letter and the email are cited in plaintiff's June 11, 2018 letter to the Court. Plaintiff notes that while it disagrees with the designation of the documents as confidential, it seeks to file both documents under seal because Hunt has designated both documents “Highly Confidential” per the parties’ stipulated protective order. (Id.)
Hunt argues that Exhibit 5 should be filed under seal because it is a “two-page letter from Morgan to Hunt outlining the reasons why Hunt should subcontract the roof mechanization work on the Marlins to Morgan.” (Hunt 6/18/18 Ltr).[3] Hunt argues that the letter contains allegations about the roof design for which “publication out of context” could be commercially harmful to Hunt.
Hunt argues that Exhibit 6 should be sealed as well. This document is an email from Hunt concerning the Marlins Project. (Id.) Hunt claims this is a “purely private document” that could also cause “commercial/business harm” to Hunt if publicly published.
Plaintiff's second motion to seal stems from plaintiff's second June 11, 2018 letter motion to compel. Again, plaintiff seeks to file under seal the letter motion as well as Exhibits 7 and 8 to its second letter. (Pl.’s Sec. 6/11/18 Mot.).[4] Exhibit 7 is “a copy of a Daily Field Engineering Report” written by a contractor hired by Hardesty & Hanover. (Id.) Exhibit 8 is a copy of an email from the contractor to an employee at Hardesty & Hanover. Both exhibits are quoted in the June 11, 2018 letter. Even though plaintiff does not agree with the confidential designation, plaintiff notes that Hardesty designated both of these documents as confidential. (Id.)
*2 On June 18, 2018, Hardesty joined in plaintiff's second motion to file under seal. (Hardesty 6/18/18 Ltr).[5] Hardesty argues that Exhibits 7 and 8 are “confidential business records of Hardesty ... and thus do not reflect public domain information.” (Id.) The third motion to seal was filed by Hardesty, which seeks to file under seal its June 18, 2018 letter and Exhibit 9 to that letter, both of which Hardesty argues contain “confidential business information relating to a third party ... and its internal decision making processes, in addition to confidential business information relating to both Hardesty and Uni-Systems, LLC, particularly bidding price information.” (Id.)
This Court has previously observed that “although it is true that a protective order may provide guidance to the parties regarding what documents it might be appropriate to seal and how such documents should be presented to the Court, the decision to allow documents to be filed under seal in connection with motions and court proceedings is a wholly separate inquiry governed by a different standard than whether to maintain documents disclosed in discovery in confidence.” Johnson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 16 CV 3919, 2017 WL 5197143, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2017).
If the Court determines the documents at issue are judicial documents, a common law right of public access attaches, which may only be overcome upon the showing of good cause. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F. 3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). A judicial document “ ‘must be relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.’ ” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F. 3d at 119 (citing United States v. Amodeo, 44 F. 3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). Courts in this circuit have frequently found documents filed in support of discovery motions to be judicial documents. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., No. 12 CV 6608, 2014 WL 4346174 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014); In re Omnicom Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02 CV 4483, 2006 WL 3016311 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2016) (finding the public-access presumption applies to discovery motion papers and denying a request to seal discovery motions).
In “determining whether good cause has been shown, courts must weigh the private interests advanced against the public interest in judicial documents.” Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 184 F.R.D. 504, 505 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). The public interest “is based on the citizenry's right ‘to keep a watchful eye’ on the workings of federal courts and the federal courts’ need for public accountability.” Id. (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978)).
In contrast to judicial documents, “[d]ocuments that play no role in the performance of Article III functions ... lie entirely beyond the presumption's reach ... and stand on a different footing than a motion filed by a party seeking action by the court or ... any other document which is presented to the court to invoke its powers or affect its decisions.” United States v. Amodeo (“Amodeo II”), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
The letters at issue were presented to the Court in connection with discovery disputes that resulted in this Court's discovery Order. The documents are therefore subject to the presumption of public access. The Court is unable to discern any interests that would defeat the public's presumptive right of access to the letter motions at issue.
*3 As for the Exhibits to the letter motions, the Court has reviewed Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the June 11, 2018 letters and Exhibit 9 of the June 18, 2018 letters. To the extent that the parties believe any specific section of the exhibits to these letter motions contain trade secrets, such as pricing information or other internal business communications, such information may be redacted before being filed on the public docket. The parties’ counsel are directed to thereafter file the exhibits on the public docket.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties either electronically through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system or by mail.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
Citations to “11/27/18 Order” refer to the Order of this Court, dated November 27, 2018, ECF No. 289.
Citations to “Pl.’s 6/11/18 Mot.” refer to plaintiff's Motion to File Under Seal, filed June 11, 2018, ECF No. 241.
Citations to “Hunt 6/18/18 Ltr” refer to the letter from Hunt, filed June 18, 2018, ECF No. 243.
Citations to “Pl.’s Sec. 6/11/18 Mot.” refer to plaintiff's second Motion to File Under Seal, filed June 11, 2018, ECF No. 242.
Citations to “Hardesty 6/18/18 Mot.” refer to Hardesty's Motion to File Under Seal, filed June 18, 2018, ECF No. 245.