Marquis ProCap System, LLC v. Novozymes North America, Inc.

C.D. Illinois

Marquis ProCap System, LLC v. Novozymes North America, Inc.

DecidedMay 14, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-01020

StatusUnknown

This text of Marquis ProCap System, LLC v. Novozymes North America, Inc. (Marquis ProCap System, LLC v. Novozymes North America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marquis ProCap System, LLC v. Novozymes North America, Inc., (C.D. Ill. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

MARQUIS PROCAP SYSTEMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-1020 ) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER AND OPINION Pending before the Court is Defendant Novozymes North America, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Document Under Seal. (ECF No. 186). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is Granted-in-part. Defendant has appealed the Magistrate Judge’s discovery decision and seeks to seal the memorandum and all the exhibits accompanying the memorandum. There is, however, a strong presumption toward public disclosure of court files and documents. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982). Indeed, the “public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding,” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Grove Fresh Distrib., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir.1994)). Public access to court opinions and certain court documents also implicates the First Amendment rights of the public. See Grove Fresh, 24 F.3d at 897. Courts are the primary representative of the public and cannot simply “rubber stamp” agreements to seal parts of the record. Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945. This case involves trade secrets and the Court has permitted the parties to file documents under seal. However, the Court has reviewed the most recent memorandum that Defendant wishes to seal, and it appears that very little in the brief that would require protection from public view.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal [186] is GRANTED to the extent that ECF No. 185 will remain sealed and it is further ORDERED that Defendant provide a redacted version on or before June 11, 2021. Defendant should carefully determine what falls within the limited exception that would permit the Court to seal those documents from public view. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Memorandum of Law [187] is GRANTED. The Court will consider the brief found at ECF No. 188 in place of the ECF No. 185 and ECF No. 188 will remain sealed as well. ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2021. /s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

MARQUIS PROCAP SYSTEMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 20-1020 ) NOVOZYMES NORTH AMERICA, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER AND OPINION Pending before the Court is Defendant Novozymes North America, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Document Under Seal. (ECF No. 186). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion is Granted-in-part. Defendant has appealed the Magistrate Judge’s discovery decision and seeks to seal the memorandum and all the exhibits accompanying the memorandum. There is, however, a strong presumption toward public disclosure of court files and documents. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982). Indeed, the “public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding,” Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Grove Fresh Distrib., Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir.1994)). Public access to court opinions and certain court documents also implicates the First Amendment rights of the public. See Grove Fresh, 24 F.3d at 897. Courts are the primary representative of the public and cannot simply “rubber stamp” agreements to seal parts of the record. Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945. This case involves trade secrets and the Court has permitted the parties to file documents under seal. However, the Court has reviewed the most recent memorandum that Defendant wishes to seal, and it appears that very little in the brief that would require protection from public view.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal [186] is GRANTED to the extent that ECF No. 185 will remain sealed and it is further ORDERED that Defendant provide a redacted version on or before June 11, 2021. Defendant should carefully determine what falls within the limited exception that would permit the Court to seal those documents from public view. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Memorandum of Law [187] is GRANTED. The Court will consider the brief found at ECF No. 188 in place of the ECF No. 185 and ECF No. 188 will remain sealed as well. ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2021. /s/ Michael M. Mihm Michael M. Mihm United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Marquis ProCap System, LLC v. Novozymes North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquis-procap-system-llc-v-novozymes-north-america-inc-ilcd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack