Uni-Sys., LLC. v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n

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.

17 CV 147 (KAM) (CLP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 8, 2019

ORDER

POLLAK, United States Magistrate Judge:

On January 11, 2019, plaintiff Uni-Systems, LLC ("Uni-Systems" or "plaintiff") filed 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 two motions to seal pending before this Court. The instant Order deals with the request to seal Hunt's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and associated documents, and also addresses USTA's request to seal its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and associated documents.

A. Hunt's Answer and Associated Documents

The first motion to seal was filed by defendant Hunt on January 25, 2019 in connection with plaintiff's December 28, 2018 Second Amended Complaint. In addition to seeking to seal its Answer, Hunt also seeks to seal eleven exhibits to its Answer, Exhibits A through H. (Hunt 1/25/19 Mot.¹ at 1-2). Exhibit A is a document from Uni-Systems to Hunt, dated June 17, 2003, discussing the design of the proposed retractable roof. (Hunt 1/25/19 Ans.,² Ex. A). Exhibit B consists of two documents from Uni-Systems to Hunt, including a revised sum proposal and a copy of the scope definition for the Cardinals' facility, dated June 16, 2003. (Id., Ex. B). Exhibit C is a subcontract agreement between Hunt and Uni-Systems, dated January 14, 2005. (Id., Ex. C). Exhibit D is an interim subcontract agreement between Hunt and Uni-Systems, dated September 3, 2003. (Id., Ex. D). Exhibit E is a subcontract agreement between Hunt and Morgan Kinetic Structures Inc., dated March 20, 2014. (Id., Ex. E). Exhibit F is a letter from Hunt to Rossetti demanding that Rossetti indemnify and hold Hunt harmless against claims made by Uni-Systems, dated May 31, 2016. (Id., Ex. F). Exhibit G is a letter from Hunt to Morgan demanding that Morgan indemnify and hold Hunt harmless against claims made by Uni-Systems, dated May 31, 2016. (Id., Ex. G). Exhibit H is a Professional Services Agreement between Hunt and Rossetti, dated March 19, 2014. (Id., Ex. H). Hunt's Answer to plaintiff'sFirst Amended Complaint did not contain any exhibits, and defendant Hunt did not file a motion to file any component of its previous Answer under seal. (See Hunt 11/08/18 Ans.³).

All of the exhibits Hunt seeks to file under seal are cited in Hunt's January 25, 2019 Answer. (Hunt 1/25/19 Ans. at 21-22, 31-38, 50-51, 54). Defendant notes that while it disagrees with the designation of the documents as confidential, it seeks to file all documents under seal because plaintiff Uni-Systems has designated all of these documents "Highly Confidential" and that such documents should be filed under seal per the parties' stipulated protective order. (Hunt 1/25/19 Mot. at 2). Neither Hunt nor Uni-Systems has provided any additional justification for the documents to be filed under seal. (Id.)

B. USTA's Answer and Associated Documents

The second motion to seal was filed by defendant USTA on January 25, 2019 in connection with plaintiff's December 28, 2018 Second Amended Complaint. Defendant USTA seeks to file under seal its Answer as well as Exhibits A through D to its Answer. (USTA 1/25/19 Mot.⁴ at 1-2). Exhibits A through D are the same as Exhibits A through D to Hunt's Answer. (See USTA 1/25/19 Ans.⁵ Exs. A-D). USTA's previously filed Answers did not contain any exhibits and USTA did not file a motion to file the previous Answers under seal. (USTA 3/20/17 Ans.;⁶ USTA 11/08/18 Ans.⁷).

All the exhibits USTA seeks to file under seal are cited in its January 25, 2019 Answer. (USTA 1/25/19 Mot. at 27-36). USTA does not contest the "Highly Confidential" designation given to these documents by plaintiff Uni-Systems and seeks to file all documents under seal per the parties' stipulated protective order. (Id. at 2). Neither USTA nor Uni-Systems has provided any other justification for the documents to be filed under seal. (Id.)

DISCUSSION

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.'" Id. (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); see also 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).

In the instant case, two defendants each seek to file their Answers under seal. The Complaint is a pleading, and Answers that either confirm or deny allegations made in the Complaint are responsive pleadings. Pleadings are judicial documents which are subject to a strong presumption of public access. Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 140 (2d Cir. 2016) (stating that "pleadings plainly meet the [judiciary document] test for reasons that are readily apparent"). The requests to file the parties' Answers under seal are therefore denied. To the extent that any of the parties believe any specific section of the Answers contains trade secrets or confidential business information, such as the figures on page 37 of Hunt's Answer and the figure on page 31 of USTA's Answer, the parties may jointly agreeto redact such information before filing the Answers on the public docket. (See Hunt 1/25/19 Ans. ¶ 28; USTA 1/25/19 Ans. ¶ 27). The parties are directed to thereafter file the Answers on the public docket.

Hunt and USTA also seek to file certain exhibits to their Answers under seal. Neither these defendants nor plaintiff Uni-Systems has provided any justification for why these exhibits should be filed under seal beyond the fact that Uni-Systems has marked these exhibits as "Highly Confidential" per the parties' stipulated protective order. While the parties' reliance on an existing protective order alone is insufficient for this Court to grant the motion, the Court has reviewed the documents and considered whether any of the exhibits may properly be categorized as trade secrets or sensitive business documents that would justify filing them under seal.

All of the documents produced by the parties during discovery are subject to a protective order, prohibiting the parties from disclosing information designated confidential. (9/28/17 Order⁸). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides the Court with discretion to decide when a protective order is necessary and the ability to determine what degree of protection is required. "Rule 26(c)(1)(G) directs that, upon good cause, a court may issue a protective order requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way. Internal documents and unpublished drafts that contain non-public strategies and financial information constitute 'confidential commercial information' under Federal Rule 26(c)(1)(G)." Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14 CV 7582, 2016 WL 1451548, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016...