UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

JOSHUA STROMINSKI, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:15-CV-122 RLM

)

ARCELORMITTAL USA, LLC, )

)

Defendant )

OPINION and ORDER

ArcelorMittal USA, LLC removed Joshua Strominski’s complaint to this

court from the Lake County Circuit Court on March 31, 2015 based on 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. Because the jurisdictional allegations of the removal

notice were deficient, the court issued an order directing ArcelorMittal to file an

amended removal notice properly alleging the existence of diversity jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ArcelorMittal timely filed its amended removal notice on

April 20. 

The amended notice alleges, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, that Mr.

Strominski is an Indiana citizen and that ArcelorMittal USA LLC “is a limited

liability company,” as evidenced by the affidavit of Marc Jeske, who “details the

multiple layers of limited liability companies that are above ArcelorMittal USA LLC

until the ultimate member is reached, ArcelorMittal S.A. ArcelorMittal S.A. is a

Luxembourg corporation with its principal place of business in Luxembourg.
Therefore, ArcelorMittal USA LLC is a citizen of Luxembourg.” Amd. Not., ¶ 11. Mr.

Jeske’s affidavit is attached to the amended removal notice as Exhibit C.

ArcelorMittal has filed a motion to seal Mr. Jeske’s affidavit because, the

company says, the information Mr. Jeske provides about the organizational

structure of ArcelorMittal entities “has been kept strictly confidential by

ArcelorMittal USA LLC due to it detailing the internal corporate structure of

ArcelorMittal USA LLC’s ultimate parent company, ArcelorMittal S.A.” Mot. to

Seal, ¶¶ 2-3. ArcelorMittal says courts in this circuit have recognized that

documents containing trade secrets or other confidential information may be

sealed, specifically citing the court’s decision in Swartz v. Wabash Nat’l Corp., No.

4:07-CV-70, 2009 WL 1606923, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June 8, 2009), granting a motion

to seal documents that included an “e-mail on organizational structure.”

ArcelorMittal asks that Mr. Jaske’s affidavit be sealed to prevent “the disclosure

of confidential information to the general public.” Mot. to Seal, ¶ 5.

The decision in Swartz is distinguishable in two important ways. First, the

complaint in Swartz was based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, not on diversity jurisdiction, so information about Wabash National’s 1

organizational structure wasn’t crucial to the issue of jurisdiction as it is in this

case. In addition, the documents examined by the Swartz court, including the

Ms. Swartz alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

1

et seq.; the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Pregnancy Discrimination

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k); and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

2
cited email, “contain[ed] information about non-party employees of Wabash

National, including salary information and evaluative assessments,” 2009 WL

1606923, at *1, information not at issue here. See City of Greenville, IL v.

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., No. 10-cv-188, 2012 WL 6023849, at *9 (S.D. Ill.

Dec. 4, 2012) (“Swartz [v. Wabash Nat’l Corp.] is accepted for the proposition that

the good cause standard is generally satisfied when exhibits reveal certain

information about nonparty employees, including salary information and

evaluative assessments. Swartz is not good authority for any other legal

proposition.”).

“Information that affects the disposition of litigation belongs in the public

record unless a statute or privilege justifies nondisclosure.” United States v.

Foster, 564 F.3d 852, 853 (7th Cir. 2009). ArcelorMittal hasn’t pointed to any

statute or privilege that would justify the non-disclosure of information about its

organizational structure, nor has the company claimed that the information at

issue contains “nonpublic financial information” or that “public disclosure would

likely create a significant commercial advantage or disadvantage.” City of

Greenville, IL v. Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., No. 10-cv-188, 2013 WL 1164788,

at *3 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2013). ArcelorMittal hasn’t demonstrated the need to

maintain the confidentiality of their corporate structure, especially since the

court’s determination of whether ArcelorMittal’s removal based on diversity

jurisdiction was proper rests on ArcelorMittal’s disclosure of that information.

3
ArcelorMittal wants to invoke this court’s diversity jurisdiction while keeping

its citizenship secret. Documents and other information that influence or

underpin a judicial decision are to be “open to public inspection unless they meet

the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide long-term

confidentiality.” United States v. Foster,564 F.3d at 853. That the company wants

to keep information about the various entities in its organizational structure

secret “is not a valid reason for removing documents that influence or underpin

a judicial decision from the public record in civil litigation.” Signicast, LLC v.

Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 920 F. Supp. 2d 967, 970 (E.D. Wis. 2013); see also

Belleville Catering Co. v. Champaign Market Place, LLC, 350 F.3d 691, 693 (7th

Cir. 2003) (“Champaign Market Place says that one of its members is another

limited liability company that ‘is asserting confidentiality for the members of the

L.L.C.’ It is not possible to litigate under the diversity jurisdiction with details kept

confidential from the judiciary. So federal jurisdiction has not been established.”).

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES ArcelorMittal’s motion to seal the

affidavit of Marc Jeske [docket # 5]. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: April 23, 2015 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, United States District Court

4