7th Cir. Confirms Protections for Sealing Parties' Confidential Documents

27 August 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

A common concern for business litigants is protecting legitimately confidential matter contained in documents produced during discovery from dissemination to non-parties. The Supreme Court’s decision in Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 47 U.S. 20 (1984), confirmed that discovery material can be shielded from the public eye—commonly through a protective order—but once that material is filed with the court, any document that affects the disposition of litigation is presumptively open to public view.  Some parties, pointing to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5(d), have suggested that any document filed with a court “has been used in [a court] proceeding,” and  has possibly influenced the judicial decision, so must presumptively be made public. That interpretation leaves the producing party (usually the business entity) in a vulnerable position, unable to protect from disclosure confidential documents produced to the opposing party, regardless of whether they are relevant to the issue at hand.

That was the situation faced by the Seventh Circuit in City of Greenville, Illinois v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, No. 13-1626 (Aug. 20, 2014), where a plaintiff filed exhibits in response to a motion to dismiss but did not rely on or even cite to them in argument. The exhibits included internal emails concerning business deliberations that the defendant wanted to remain private. The district court observed that, since the plaintiff hadn’t relied on the exhibits, the court would not review them.  Because it had ignored the documents, the district court held that they need not be disclosed to the public. A third-party intervened and asked the Seventh Circuit to extend the presumption of public disclosure to every non-privileged document that reaches the courthouse.

The court refused, confirming that public access depends on whether a document “influenced or underpinned the judicial decision.”  While filing of documents might support an inference of influence, that is not  always  the case, as here. Otherwise, the court said, Seattle Times’ protection of discovery materials would be toothless. This result suggests that litigants should proactively take steps to shield from disclosure confidential documents inappropriately filed by opposing counsel and not relied on by the court.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ