*1 THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court upon the joint motion of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corp. (“Sabinsa”) and Defendant Prakruti Products Pvt. Ltd. (“Prakruti”), pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c), to seal portions of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162); the Declaration of Jake Christensen In Support Of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162-01); Exhibits 1–2, 5–7, and 15 (ECF Nos. 162-02, 162-03, 162-05, 162-06, 162-07, and 162-11), thereto; Proposed Order granting Sabinsa's Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162-12); the Letter dated May 21, 2018 to the Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., from Sean R. Kelly regarding Extension of Deadline (the “May 21, 2018 Letter”) (ECF No. 167); Exhibits 1–3 to the “May 21, 2018 Letter” (ECF Nos. 167-01 to 167-03); the Letter dated May 22, 2018 to the Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., from Sean R. Kelly regarding Extension of Deadline (the “May 22, 2018 Letter”) (ECF No. 171); Exhibit 5 to the May 22, 2018 Letter (ECF No. 171-01); Defendant Prakruti Products Pvt. Ltd.’s Opposition To Sabinsa's Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 176); Exhibits 3 and 5 (ECF Nos. 176-04 and 176-06), thereto; Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 178); and the Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 (ECF Nos. 178-02, 178-03, and 178-05), thereto, which are currently under temporary seal (“the Confidential Materials”); and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support of that Motion; and the Court noting that pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c) the Court may restrict public access to any materials or judicial proceedings upon request by any party; and for the reasons set forth in the record of the proceedings, and for other and good cause having been shown;

The Court adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

I. The Nature of the Materials or Proceedings at Issue

A. Findings of Fact

1. Sabinsa and Prakruti jointly seek to permanently seal the Confidential Materials.

2. L. Civ. R. 5.3(c) requires the moving party to show the following:

3. The Confidential Materials contain and/or reference information which Sabinsa, Prakruti, and subpoenaed third parties have designated as “Confidential Information” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information” pursuant to L. Pat. R. 2.2 and the Discovery Confidentiality Order in this matter (ECF No. 92), as well as other Prakruti confidential business information. Such Confidential Materials disclose sensitive commercial documents regarding sales, product information, customer lists, business operations, and a confidential settlement agreement that, if not sealed, could diminish Sabinsa's, Prakruti's, or third parties’ business and competitive advantages in the marketplace. Release of the Confidential Materials would pose a financial and competitive risk because it would reveal information regarding the sales, customers, product information, business operations, and the settlement agreement. See Christensen Decl. ¶ 7; see also Krauss Decl. ¶ 7.

B. Conclusions of Law

*2 4. There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records. See Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the burden of demonstrating that “the material is the kind of information that courts will protect.” Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

5. This Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed to the public. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) allows the Court to protect materials containing “trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information,” upon motion by a party, to prevent harm to a litigant's competitive standing in the marketplace. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889–91 (E.D. Pa. 1981).

II. The Legitimate Private or Public Interest that Warrants the Relief Sought

A. Findings of Fact

6. The Confidential Materials contain and/or reflect information that Sabinsa, Prakruti, and third parties have designated as “Confidential Information” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information” pursuant to the Discovery Confidentiality Order, as well as other Prakruti confidential business information. See Christensen Decl. ¶ 6; see also Krauss Decl. ¶ 6. The Confidential Material also discusses, includes, or comprises sensitive, highly confidential information relating to the settlement agreement.

7. Sabinsa, Prakruti, and third parties have an interest in not publicly disclosing this information (i.e., sales, customers, etc.). Sabinsa, Prakruti, and third parties rely upon such information to gain a competitive advantage in the nutraceutical industry. See Christensen Decl. ¶ 7; see also Krauss Decl. ¶ 7.

B. Conclusions of Law

8. Courts have recognized that the presumption of public access is not absolute and may be rebutted. See Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991). “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).

9. Courts may deny access to and seal a document when it encompasses business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing. See id. This Court has held that the inclusion of trade secrets and other confidential information in documents warrants the sealing of such documents. “A well-settled exception to the right of access is the ‘protection of a party's interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm.’ ” In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) (citation omitted). “The presence of trade secrets or other confidential information weighs against public access and, accordingly, documents containing such information may be protected from disclosure.” Id.

III. Clearly Defined and Serious Injury Would Result If the Relief Sought Is Not Granted

A. Findings of Fact

10. The public disclosure of the Confidential Materials would pose a substantial risk of harm to Sabinsa's, Prakruti's, or third parties’ legitimate proprietary and commercial interests, as well as their competitive positions in the nutraceutical industry. See Christensen Decl. ¶ 7; see also Krauss Decl. ¶ 7.

B. Conclusions of Law

*3 11. The District Court has discretion to balance the factors for and against access to court documents. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994).

12. Protection of a party's interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm, and is clearly defined as a serious injury. See Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984).

IV. No Less Restrictive Alternative Is Available

A. Findings of Fact

13. This joint request to seal the Confidential Materials is tailored to the information that Sabinsa, Prakruti, and third parties have designated as “Confidential Information” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information” pursuant to the Discovery Confidentiality Order, as well as other Prakruti confidential business information. See Christensen Decl. ¶ 6; see also Krauss Decl. ¶ 6.

14. The disclosure of Sabinsa's, Prakruti's, or third parties’ confidential, commercial, and proprietary information would pose a financial and competitive risk to Sabinsa, Prakruti, and third parties. The Confidential Materials include commercial information with regard to sales and customers related to this action. The only way to protect such confidential, commercial, and proprietary interests is to seal the Confidential Materials. See Christensen Decl. ¶ 7; see also Krauss Decl. ¶ 7.

B. Conclusions of Law

15. Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2), a party seeking to seal documents must meet the fourth prong that no less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is available. See Securimetrics, Inc. v. Indian Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006).

16. Here, there is no alternative to sealing the confidential information. However, where possible, the documents at issue have been redacted in lieu of the wholesale sealing of same.

THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, IT IS on this 28th day of August, 2018, hereby

ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Seal shall be GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that portions of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162); the Declaration of Jake Christensen In Support Of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162-01); Exhibits 1–2, 5–7, and 15 (ECF Nos. 162-02, 162-03, 162-05, 162-06, 162-07, and 162-11), thereto; Proposed Order granting Sabinsa's Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162-12); the Letter dated May 21, 2018 to the Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., from Sean R. Kelly regarding Extension of Deadline (the “May 21, 2018 Letter”) (ECF No. 167); Exhibits 1–3 to the “May 21, 2018 Letter” (ECF Nos. 167-01 to 167-03); the Letter dated May 22, 2018 to the Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., from Sean R. Kelly regarding Extension of Deadline (the “May 22, 2018 Letter”) (ECF No. 171); Exhibit 5 to the May 22, 2018 Letter (ECF No. 171-01); Defendant Prakruti Products Pvt. Ltd.’s Opposition To Sabinsa's Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 176); Exhibits 3 and 5 (ECF Nos. 176-04 and 176-06), thereto; Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 178); and the Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 (ECF Nos. 178-02, 178-03, and 178-05), thereto, shall maintained UNDER SEAL by the Clerk of the Court, and it is further

*4 ORDERED that the parties, if they have not done so already, shall submit redacted versions of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162); the Declaration of Jake Christensen In Support Of Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162-01); Exhibits 1–2, 5–7, and 15 (ECF Nos. 162-02, 162-03, 162-05, 162-06, 162-07, and 162-11), thereto; Proposed Order granting Sabinsa's Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 162-12); the Letter dated May 21, 2018 to the Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., from Sean R. Kelly regarding Extension of Deadline (the “May 21, 2018 Letter”) (ECF No. 167); Exhibits 1–3 to the “May 21, 2018 Letter” (ECF Nos. 167-01 to 167-03); the Letter dated May 22, 2018 to the Honorable Karen M. Williams, U.S.M.J., from Sean R. Kelly regarding Extension of Deadline (the “May 22, 2018 Letter”) (ECF No. 171); Exhibit 5 to the May 22, 2018 Letter (ECF No. 171-01); Defendant Prakruti Products Pvt. Ltd.’s Opposition To Sabinsa's Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 176); Exhibits 3 and 5 (ECF Nos. 176-04 and 176-06), thereto; Plaintiff Sabinsa Corporation's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Sanctions (ECF No. 178); and the Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 (ECF Nos. 178-02, 178-03, and 178-05), thereto, within ten days of the date of the within Order.