By Order dated August 14, 2023, the court required the parties to propose “updated redactions to the court’s memorandum opinion, ECF No. 624, by August 18, 2023.” Order, ECF No. 640, ¶ 4. The court timely received those proposals, which included requests from third parties to maintain certain portions of the opinion under seal. The court has considered these requests for continued sealing under the six Hubbard factors. See Metlife, Inc. v. Fin. Stability Oversight Council, 865 F.3d 661, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Those factors are: “(1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of previous public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any property and privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents were introduced during the judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting EEOC v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 98 F.3d 1406, 1409 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). In weighing these factors, the court has been mindful of the following:

• “[T]here is a ‘need for public access’ in those instances where ‘the documents at issue [are] ... specifically referred to in the trial judge’s public decision.’” Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 98 F.3d at 1409 (quoting United States v. Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 318 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

• Though the “extent of previous public access” is a factor, no party has made a proffer as to the public availability of any document or information.

• “[W]here a third party’s property and privacy rights are at issue the need for minimizing intrusion is especially great . . .” Hubbard, 650 F.3d at 319.

• To the extent the court quoted from or cited actual business records, the court presumes that such records were produced in discovery and are subject to the protective order.

• The possibility of prejudice depends on “the nature of the materials disclosed.” Id. at 321.

• The parties—though not the third parties—intended for the court to consider the cited materials by submitting them to the court to support their summary judgment arguments. See Nat’l Children’s Ctr., 98 F.3d at 1410.

The court’s rulings and explanations are set forth below. The fact that the court has not mentioned a specific factor should not be taken to mean that it has not considered and weighed every factor, as required. Further, the rulings below pertain only to the summary judgment opinion. The court is prepared to reconsider them at trial.