Pukt v. Nexgrill Industries

2016-08-23

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated its prior order sealing the objections and exhibits, finding that Nexgrill failed to meet its burden of showing a compelling interest sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial records.

The Pukts sued Nexgrill Industries over property damage caused by a defective grill that caught fire. Nexgrill sought to keep certain court filings and exhibits under seal, claiming they were subject to a confidentiality agreement executed with the Pukts' counsel regarding materials produced by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The court applied the strong presumption favoring public access to judicial records, which can only be overcome by compelling reasons. Nexgrill bore the burden of demonstrating such compelling interests but failed to do so. The company relied solely on the existence of the confidentiality agreement without explaining how any specific material qualified for protection or articulating any other legitimate basis for secrecy.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a private confidentiality agreement between parties is sufficient to seal court documents
The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to judicial records
What constitutes a compelling reason justifying non-disclosure of judicial filings

Procedural posture

The district court reconsidered its prior sealing order in response to the parties' objections and arguments regarding whether court documents should remain under seal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph and Barbara Pukt

v. Civil No. 14-cv-215-JD

Opinion No. 2016 DNH 151

Nexgrill Industries, Inc.

O R D E R

Joseph and Barbara Pukt brought suit against Nexgrill

Industries, Inc., alleging claims that arose from damage to

their property after a grill manufactured by Nexgrill caught

fire. On July 19, 2016, the court ordered Nexgrill to show

cause why the Pukts’ objections to certain motions in limine,

which included exhibits that Nexgrill had marked confidential,

should remain sealed. Nexgrill filed a response, asserting that

there was good cause to keep the objections and exhibits sealed.

The Pukts filed a response to Nexgrill’s submission, asserting

that they could not articulate a good cause why the objections

and exhibits should remain sealed.

Standard of Review

“Public access to judicial records and documents allows the

citizenry to ‘monitor the functioning of our courts, thereby

insuring quality, honesty and respect for our legal system.’”

Nat'l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 70 (1st Cir. 2011) (quoting FTC v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d 404,

410 (1st Cir.1987)). Accordingly, a presumption exists that

documents submitted to the court in litigation and on which the

court relies in determining substantive issues in the case

should be available to the public. See In re Providence Journal

Co., 293 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002); United States v. Ciccolo,

2015 WL 9294206, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 21, 2015). Although this

presumption can “be overcome by competing interests,” “only the

most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial

records.” Id. (quoting Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d at

410). As the party seeking to keep the documents sealed,

Nexgrill bears the burden of making a showing compelling enough

“to overcome the presumption of public access.” Id.

Discussion

Nexgrill contends that the objections and exhibits should

remain under seal because some of the exhibits were only

produced to the Pukts by the Consumer Product Safety Commission

after Nexgrill and the Pukts’ counsel executed a confidentiality

agreement. However, “[t]he fact that the parties agreed to keep

documents confidential, by itself, is insufficient to overcome

the public interest in access to the documents.” Booth v.

Davis, No. CV 10-4010-KHV, 2016 WL 1170949, at *3 (D. Kan. Mar.

23, 2016) (collecting cases). Beyond referring to the

confidentiality agreement, Nexgrill does not provide any

compelling reason for why the Pukts’ objections and the exhibits

should be kept under seal. 1 For example, although Nexgrill

relies on the confidentiality agreement, it does not explain how

any of the relevant material is confidential or otherwise

protected from disclosure. Therefore, Nexgrill has not shown

that a compelling interest exists that overcomes the presumption

in favor of public disclosure.

Accordingly, the objections and exhibits will not remain

under seal.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court will vacate its order

sealing the relevant material (endorsed order, July 7, 2016).

1 To the extent Nexgrill argues that the exhibits should be sealed based on the Consumer Product Safety Act’s public disclosure provision, see 15 U.S.C. § 2055, Nexgrill has not sufficiently developed an argument as to why that statute requires sealing documents in this litigation. See Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 260 (1st Cir. 1999) (“The district court is free to disregard arguments that are not adequately developed . . . .”).

The Pukts’ objections and the attached exhibits (doc. nos. 131-33) will be unsealed on August 29, unless a further response

from Nexgrill persuades the court otherwise before then.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

August 23, 2016

cc: Raymond E. Mack, Esq.

Joseph L. McGlynn, Esq.

Kevin Truland, Esq.

Richard F. Wholley, Esq.