*1 This civil action is now before the Court on the parties’ motions to file documents under seal (Docs. 47, 48) and their responsive memoranda (Docs. 49, 50). The motions will be addressed in turn.

As noted by Plaintiff, this is a case that involves claims of copyright infringement and alleged misappropriation of trade secrets regarding Cincom's proprietary and exclusively licensed VSE Software, including “highly confidential computer program source code.” While the Sixth Circuit recognizes a presumption against the sealing of documents, Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016), this presumption may be overcome by “trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege (such as the attorney-client privilege), and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence[.]” Id. at 308 (citing Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).

Here, Cincom seeks to file under seal certain deposition transcripts, exhibits, and other materials from the evidentiary record that have been designated as either CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case. These documents contain confidential information relating to protected source code of the VSE Software and Cincom's trade secrets for the VSE Software documents. Notably, Cincom requests leave to file under seal the following materials:

Cincom Expert Witness Depositions, Reports, and Exhibits:

LabWare Expert Witness Deposition, Reports, and Exhibits:

Written Discovery and Other Materials:

(Doc. 47, p 2-5).

Defendant LabWare opposes Plaintiff's motions to seal arguing that Plaintiff misinterprets the Shane Group standard and its motion to seal is grossly overbroad. (Doc. 49). In this regard, Defendant notes that the Sixth Circuit explicitly distinguished and rejected designations under a protective order as a basis for sealing. Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 305 (“[T]here is a stark difference between so-called ‘protective orders’ entered pursuant to the discovery provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, on the one hand, and orders to seal court records, on the other.”). “Unlike information merely exchanged between the parties, ‘the public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record.’ ” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, Defendant argues that Cincom's unilateral designation of documents and testimony as confidential under a protective order governing discovery between the parties does not establish that those same documents and testimony ought to be sealed when they are submitted to the Court. Shane Group requires Cincom to offer more than unilateral designations and conclusory assertions of confidentiality to justify sealing court records.

*4 LabWare further argues that Cincom does not provide a particularized explanation as to the need to seal these documents, thus, leaving LabWare to “prove the negative” and unlawfully shift the burden. (Doc. 49, p3). “The burden of overcoming [the] presumption [of public access to court records] is borne by the party that seeks to seal them.” Shane Group, 825 F.3d at 305 (citing In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001)). LabWare's contentions are not well-taken.

As noted by Plaintiff Cincom, Defendant LabWare does not dispute that this case involves Cincom's “highly confidential computer program source code” for the VSE Software and Cincom's trade secrets regarding the VSE Software—which the Sixth Circuit and this Court have long recognized is a “recognized exception to the right of public access to judicial records.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983); McCleese v. Natorp's, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-118, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214674, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2022) (“The need to protect trade secrets can overcome the presumption of access....Moreover, this Court has repeatedly recognized that protecting confidential information that would otherwise allow competitors an inside look at a company's business strategies is a compelling reason to restrict public access to filings.”) (McFarland, J.); Berry v. Firstgroup Am., Inc., No. 1:18-cv-326, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214199, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2022) (granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file documents and deposition transcripts under seal because they “contain or reference confidential or highly confidential information”) (McFarland, J.).

Here, Cincom cited to the Shane Group standard and the well-established exceptions thereto. The undersigned finds that it met its burden for sealing the respective documents by explaining why each of the requested materials record should be filed under seal due to their having confidential information relating to highly confidential source code of the VSE Software, Cincom's trade secrets for the VSE Software, or other sensitive commercial information regarding the VSE Software. (Doc. 47 at PageID 399-403.)

Defendant LabWare also asks the court for leave to file documents under seal in connection with its forth coming motion for summary judgment. Specifically, LabWare seeks to seal three spreadsheets that detail the revenues, expenses, and net income of LabWare, its parent company, and their corporate affiliates, all privately held companies, over the past decade. LabWare contends that those financial details are maintained confidentially, have already been determined to be properly designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only under the Stipulated Protective Order, (Doc 18), and do not bear on any liability determinations that the Court may make on summary judgment.

Upon careful review and in the absence of any opposition, the undersigned finds that LabWare's motion satisfies the Shane Group standard and is well-taken.

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Cincom's motion for leave to file documents under seal (Doc. 47) is well-taken and herein GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Cincom shall file the following materials under seal:

Furthermore, LabWare's motion to seal (Doc. 48) is also herein GRANTED. It is ORDERED that LabWare shall file the three financial spreadsheets identified above under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States Magistrate Judge