IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

Henri Bendel, Inc., :

 Plaintiff, :

v. :Case No. 2:17-cv-198

 :CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

Illuminum Incorporated Ltd., Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendant. :

 

 ORDER

Plaintiff Henri Bendel, Inc. filed a motion for leave to

file under seal the complaint and attached exhibits A through G. 

By order dated March 10, 2017, the Court directed Henri Bendel to

supplement its motion consistent with the requirements set forth 

in Shane Group v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825 F.3d

299 (6th Cir. 2016). Henri Bendel now has filed its supplemental

memorandum. For the following reasons, the motion for leave to

file under seal will be denied.

I.

In Shane, the Court of Appeals made explicit the obligations

of both the party requesting nondisclosure and the court

considering such a motion. In addressing the differences in such

consideration between the discovery stage and the adjudication

stage, the Court explained: 

“At the adjudication stage, however, very

different considerations apply.” Joy v. North, 692

F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982). The line between these

two stages, discovery and adjudicative, is crossed when

the parties place material in the court record. 

Baxter, 297 F.3d at 545. Unlike information merely

exchanged between the parties, “[t]he public has a

strong interest in obtaining the information contained

in the court record.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1180 (6th Cir. 1983).... 

Id. at 305. 

Case: 2:17-cv-00198-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 03/23/17 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 18
Further citing to Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179, the

Court of Appeals noted that “courts have long recognized ... a

presumption in favor of openness as to court records.” Id. at

305. Accordingly, “[t]he burden of overcoming that presumption

is borne by the party that seeks to seal them.” Id., citing In

re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001). This burden

is “a heavy one” and “‘[o]nly the most compelling reasons can

justify non-disclosure of judicial records.’” Id., quoting In re

Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). 

That is, “[t]he parties’ asserted bases for sealing” cannot be

“brief, perfunctory or patently inadequate.” Id. at 306. The

mere reference to a designation of confidentiality is a

“protective-order justification[], not [a] sealing-order one[].” 

Id. Additionally, “the proponents of closure bear the burden of

showing that ‘disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious

injury[.]’” Id. at 307, quoting Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194. 

Specificity in delineating the injury is essential. Id. at 307-

308. Typically, only trade secrets, information covered by a

recognized privilege and information required by statute to be

maintained in confidence is enough to overcome the presumption of

access. Id. at 308.

Moreover, even if a party demonstrates a compelling reason

for filing under seal, “the seal itself must be narrowly tailored

to serve that reason.” Id. at 305, citing Press-Enter. Co. v.

Superior Court of California, Riverside Cnty., 464 U.S. 501, 509-

11 (1984). As a result, “the proponent of sealing” is required

to “‘analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of

secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.’” Id. at 305-

306, quoting Baxter, 297 F.3d at 548. 

 II.

Henri Bendel seeks to file under seal its complaint for

breach of contract and corresponding exhibits relating to a

-2-

Case: 2:17-cv-00198-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 03/23/17 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 19
confidential settlement agreement. The exhibits consist of the

agreement itself, emails discussing the settlement, and payment

confirmations. Henri Bendel has submitted copies of these

documents to the Court for in camera review. Financial account

numbers have been redacted from these copies.

In its supplemental memorandum, Henri Bendel has attempted

to explain document by document why sealing is necessary here.

Its justification, however, can be characterized as nothing more

than the terms of the agreement itself and the general

confidentiality courts typically have afforded settlement

agreements. Beyond this, Henri Bendel contends, without any

citation to authority, that its negotiation and settlement

strategies are proprietary. The Court has reviewed the documents

and, absent any explanation from Henri Bendel, the basis for this

characterization of its strategies is not evident. Additionally,

it asserts, without details, that the disclosure of such

proprietary information will result in competitive disadvantage. 

Again, without additional specifics, the Court has no basis to

reach such a conclusion. In short, Henri Bendel’s reasons for

seeking leave to file under seal remain insufficient to meet the

“demanding requirements for a seal” as set forth in Shane. 

Moreover, the Court is not persuaded that Henri Bendel’s

request to seal the entire complaint and all exhibits can be

characterized as narrowly tailored under Shane. Henri Bendel

explains that redaction was not possible because “[a]ll parts of

the documents relate to the confidential settlement negotiations

of the Parties and do not contain extraneous information.” 

Accepting Henri Bendel’s expansive view would require the Court

to maintain the entire case under seal. Such a scenario would be

inconsistent with the “strong presumption in favor of openness as

to court records.” Shane, at 305. 

For these reasons, the Court will deny the motion to seal. 

-3-

Case: 2:17-cv-00198-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 03/23/17 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 20
Henri Bendel will be directed to file its complaint and exhibits

as submitted to the Court for in camera review with financial

account information redacted.

III.

The motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 1) is denied. 

Henri Bendel shall file its complaint and exhibits as submitted 

to the Court for in camera review with financial account 

information redacted. 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is

filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 14-01,

pt. IV(C)(3)(a). The motion must specifically designate the

order or part in question and the basis for any objection. 

Responses to objections are due fourteen days after objections

are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days

thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the

motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be

clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

 This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for

reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the

Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.

/s/ Terence P. Kemp

United States Magistrate Judge

-4-

Case: 2:17-cv-00198-EAS-TPK Doc #: 5 Filed: 03/23/17 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 21