1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSTENS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD A. HAARSMA and 

HERITAGE VINTAGE SPORTS 

AUCTIONS, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-0796-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are two motions: Plaintiff Jostens Inc.’s Amended Motion for 

Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 41] and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 53]. 

The Court has analyzed the proposed sealed documents line-by-line and page-bypage, weighing the public’s right of access against the interests favoring 

nondisclosure. After reviewing the motions, the Court GRANTS both of Jostens’s

sealing motions [Docs. 41 & 53]. The Court ORDERS the parties to follow the Court’s 

instructions for filing, redacting, and sealing public versions of the various documents 

and the information that they contain. 

I. Legal Standards

The Court takes very seriously its duty to protect the public’s access to judicial 

records.1 Transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental element of the rule 

of law—so fundamental that sealing and unsealing orders are immediately 

1 See Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 57 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 514
2

appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.2 The public’s right to access judicial 

records is independent from—and sometimes even adverse to—the parties’ interest.3 

That’s why the judge must serve as the representative of the people and, indeed, the 

First Amendment, in scrutinizing requests to seal.

Litigants may very well have a legitimate interest in confidential discovery 

secured by a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). However, 

“[t]hat a document qualifies for a protective order under Rule 26(c) for discovery says 

nothing about whether it should be sealed once it is placed in the judicial record.”4 

Here, the parties conducted discovery under a Rule 26(c) protective order and marked 

various documents “confidential.” But to seal documents on the judicial record

involves a much more demanding standard.

“To decide whether something should be sealed, the court must undertake a 

document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of 

access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”5 If the Court seals information, 

it must give sufficient reasons to allow for appellate review.6 Finally, “[p]ublicly 

available information cannot be sealed.”7 

2 June Med. Servs. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022).

3 Id.

4 Id. at 521.

5 Id. (cleaned up).

6 Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419.

7 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520.

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 57 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 515
3

II. Jostens’s Amended Motion for Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 41]

Jostens first seeks to seal certain documents in Defendant Mr. Haarsma’s 

Sealed Appendix to his Motion to Compel, and to redact portions of its amended 

interrogatory answers.8 When Jostens filed its initial sealing motion related to the 

Motion to Compel, the Court denied it without prejudice for failing to meet the 

heightened sealing standard.9 The Court provided the requirements for a sufficient 

sealing motion: to identify precisely what information (pages, lines, etc.) the party 

wants sealed; conduct a line-by-line, page-by-page analysis explaining and briefing 

why the risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to know; and explain why no 

other viable alternative to sealing exists.10 Further, the sealing motion must also 

include a declaration or oath of a person with personal knowledge.11 After the Court’s 

direction, Jostens’s second bite at the sealing apple hit the mark. 

A. Documents in the Appendix to Defendant’s Motion to Compel

Jostens’s amended sealing motion meets the heightened sealing standard. In 

its second go-around, Jostens was precise about what it wanted to seal: two 

documents, one that provides detailed design specifications for the stolen sample ring 

and one with design specifications for the official rings given to players and available

for their families and friends.12 Next, Jostens did its part to explain why the risk of 

8 Doc. 41.

9 Doc. 37.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Doc. 41, at 6–7.

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 57 Filed 09/26/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 516
4

disclosure of these two documents outweighs the public’s right to know because the 

detailed design specifications could be used to make counterfeit rings. And last,

Jostens explained that there is no other alternative to sealing because the entirety of 

each document provides confidential, and not publicly available, information. The 

Court agrees. The motion’s facts were also verified in a declaration of a person with 

personal knowledge. As such, the Court orders that the designated documents in Mr. 

Haarsma’s Sealed Appendix to his Motion to Compel be sealed.13

B. Amended Interrogatory Answers 

In the same amended sealing motion, Jostens also seeks to redact portions of 

its amended interrogatory answers, specifically information describing “the process 

by which a sports organization, player, or coach may request a duplicate ring” and 

details about the theft of the stolen sample ring. 14 Again, Jostens met the standard. 

It designated with specificity the very lines in the interrogatories it wants to redact. 

Next, Jostens explained that the risk of disclosing the specific information in the 

answers outweighs the public’s right to know because the information could be 

exploited by others to create counterfeit rings or to steal other rings. And last, Jostens 

acknowledged that the whole document need not be sealed, hence why it seeks the 

13 Doc. 32-1, Sealed App. 031, 032.

14 Doc. 41, at 7–8. 

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 57 Filed 09/26/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 517
5

targeted redaction of just the lines requested. As such, the Court orders Jostens to 

redact the bolded portions of its answers to Interrogatories Nos. 4, 9, and 10.

III. Jostens’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 53]

The second sealing motion the Court considers today is Jostens’s sealing 

motion accompanying its Motion for Summary Judgment.15 In this motion, Jostens 

requests to seal the very same page with the design specifications of the stolen sample 

ring from Jostens’s first sealing motion.16 As the Court already agreed to its sealing 

in the Appendix to Mr. Haarsma’s Motion to Compel, for the same reasons, the Court 

orders the sealing of the identical document in the Appendix to Jostens’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment.17

IV. Conclusion

Given that the Court finds that Jostens met the heightened sealing standard,

the Court GRANTS the Amended Motion for Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 41] and 

the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal [Doc. 53]. The Court ORDERS the parties 

to comply with the Court’s instructions contained herein. The Court’s instructions 

are the result of a page-by-page, line-by-line analysis. Such analysis “is not easy, but 

it is fundamental” to securing the public’s right of access to judicial records.18

15 Doc. 53.

16 See Doc. 41, at 6. 

17 Doc. 53-2, App. 9.

18 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521.

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 57 Filed 09/26/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 518
6

IT IS SO ORDERED this the 26th day of September, 2023.

___________________________________

BRANTLEY STARR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00796-X Document 57 Filed 09/26/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 519