IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CAPITAL C CONSULTING LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:17-cv-991

 Judge Michael H. Watson

 Magistrate Judge Jolson

OHIO CARE + WELLNESS LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under 

Seal and to Restrict Access and Redact Document. (Doc. 5). More specifically, Plaintiff seeks 

to file Exhibits 5 and 6 of the Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (Docs. 1-

5, 1-6), and the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2), 

under seal. (Id.). Consistent with its Motion, Plaintiff provided the documents in question to the 

Court (as well as opposing counsel) for in camera review. For the reasons that follow, that 

Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

I. STANDARD

A district court may enter a protective order during discovery on a mere showing of 

“good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “[V]ery different considerations apply” when a party 

seeks to seal documents “[a]t the adjudication stage,” which applies “when the parties place 

material in the court record.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 

305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). “Unlike information merely exchanged between the 

parties, ‘[t]he public has a strong interest in obtaining the information contained in the court 
2

record.’” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th 

Cir. 1983)). For this reason, the moving party owns a “heavy” burden of overcoming a “‘strong 

presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.” Id. (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 

F.2d at 1179); see id. (“Only the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial 

records.” (quotation omitted)). “[T]he seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason,” 

which requires the moving party to “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of 

secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Id. at 305-06 (quotation omitted). Similarly, the 

court “that chooses to seal court records must set forth specific findings and conclusions which 

justify nondisclosure.” Id. at 306 (quotation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

provides guidance for analyzing Plaintiff’s Motion. There, “[n]umerous court filings,” including 

Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, the motion for class certification, and 194 exhibits, were filed 

under seal. Graiser v. Visionworks of Am., Inc., No. 1:15-CV-2306, 2016 WL 3597718, at *1 

(N.D. Ohio July 5, 2016). The sole justification was that the filings “contained materials 

designated as confidential under [a joint] protective order.” Id.; see Shane, 825 F.3d 299 at 306. 

The Sixth Circuit held that such reasoning was “inadequate” to seal the documents at issue 

because it was “brief” and “perfunctory.” Id. 

Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to file two exhibits and the Motion for a Temporary 

Restraining Order under seal. (See Doc. 5). In support of the Motion, Plaintiff states only that it 

“requests leave because the information contained in the redacted portions of those documents is 

or may be confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret.” (Id.). As was the case in Shane, this 
3

explanation is similarly “brief” and “perfunctory,” and does not meet the heavy burden to justify 

sealing at the adjudication stage. Shane, 825 F.3d at 306. The Shane Court also emphasized 

that, “[i]n delineating the injury to be prevented, specificity is essential.” Id. at 307-08 (quoting 

In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001)). Plaintiff’s explanation, based only on 

the general assertion that the documents may be confidential or considered trade secrets, does not

“demonstrate—on a document-by-document, line-by-line basis—that specific information in the 

court record meets the demanding requirements for a seal.” Id. at 308; see Blasi v. United Debt 

Servs., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-83, 2016 WL 3765539, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 14, 2016) (applying 

Shane to reach a similar conclusion); Graiser, 2016 WL 3597718, at *2 (N.D. Ohio July 5, 2016) 

(same). Further, it appears from the Verified Complaint that the information Plaintiff seeks to 

place under seal is publicly available. (Doc. 1 at 12–13).

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal and to Restrict Access and 

Redact Document (Doc. 5) is therefore DENIED without prejudice to re-filing. The redacted 

version of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2), as 

well as the redacted exhibits (Docs. 1-5, 1-6) shall remain on the docket for fourteen (14) days 

from the date of this Order, during which time Plaintiff may re-file a more detailed and narrowly

tailored motion to seal. See Blasi, 2016 WL 3765539, at *1 (noting that a proper motion to seal 

must “demonstrate[] a compelling reason for filing under seal, . . . must be narrowly tailored to 

serve that reason,” and must “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, 

providing reasons and legal citations”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 15, 2017 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE