*1 The defendants (hereafter, the “Counties”), the plaintiff, or the Eco-Tech Entities move to seal certain documents filed as exhibits in connection with motions to compel discovery from plaintiff Clark Floyd Landfill, LLC (“Landfill LLC”) and the Eco-Tech Entities. The Counties also moved to seal their supporting memoranda of law. The information requested to be sealed was designated as confidential in discovery by one or more of the plaintiff or Eco-Tech Entities.

The motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The court rejects the position of Landfill LLC and the Eco-Tech Entities that any descriptions of their business activities, management and ownership structures, or financial transactions fit the category of a trade secret or other matter of “bona fide long-term confidentiality.” See Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1075 (7th Cir. 2009). When specific information about business activities, management and ownership structures, or financial transactions are central to the court's resolution of motions, that information cannot be sealed. Neither Landfill LLC or the Eco-Tech Entities have cited a statutory basis for sealing or the existence of a recognized privilege,[1] nor have they identified harm from disclosure that should overcome the presumption that information used in a judicial proceeding requires its public availability. See Fritzinger v. Angie's List, Inc., 2013 WL 5701456 at *1-2 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 18, 2013) (citing Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002)). See also United States v. Foster, 564 F.3d 852, 853 (7th Cir. 2009) (Easterbrook, J. Chambers Opinion) (“Information that affects the disposition of litigation belongs in the public record unless a statute or privilege justifies nondisclosure.”)

On the other hand, the court will permit some business and financial information to remain under seal where the information or the manner in which the information is presented is not material to the court's resolution of the pending discovery disputes, or where the information can be, or is, presented in an abbreviated form on the public docket. The court docket will reveal some management and ownership information and some financial transactions, in the form of information supplied to the court in the parties’ briefing—which the court considered and evaluated in reaching its decisions on the discovery motions. The court notes that Landfill LLC and the Eco-Tech Entities agree that the contents of the briefs themselves should not be sealed. Because most of the minutiae financial and business details are not material to the issues presented or are sufficiently disclosed in the briefing, the exhibits themselves may remain under seal. Based on these principles, the court ORDERS:

*2 1. The legal memoranda, at Dkts. 155, 157, 169, and 170 cannot be sealed, and none of the information in the legal memoranda can be redacted.

2. The documents at Dkts. 157-2, 157-3, and 172 may be maintained under seal.

The motions to seal at Dkts. 156, 158, and 173 are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as provided above. The briefs at Dkts. 155, 157, 169, and 170 should be unsealed by the Clerk at the end of the period provided at Local Rule 5-11(g).

So ORDERED.