Woodstream Corporation v. Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC

N.D. Ohio

Woodstream Corporation v. Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC

DecidedSeptember 7, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00294

StatusUnknown

This text of Woodstream Corporation v. Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC (Woodstream Corporation v. Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woodstream Corporation v. Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC, (N.D. Ohio 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

: WOODSTREAM : CASE NO. 1:23-cv-294 CORPORATION, : : OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff, : [Resolving Doc. 42, 43] : v. : : NATURE’S WAY BIRD : PRODUCTS, LLC, : : Defendant.

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

In this patent infringement matter, Plaintiff Woodstream Corporation moved for a stipulated entry of a protected order.1 Defendant Nature’s Way moved for leave to file under seal its response brief and accompanying exhibits, pursuant to the stipulated protective order.2 Both parties subsequently filed briefs with redacted materials.3 The Sixth Circuit applies a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.4 The burden of overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal the records.5 This party must show that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury.”6 Only “’trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege . . . and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence . . .’ is typically enough

1 Doc. 42. 2 Doc. 43. 3 Doc. 44, 45. 4 , 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing , 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). 5 to overcome the presumption of access.”7 In light of this standard, the scope of Plaintiff’s proposed protective order is overbroad.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, with the modifications described in the attached order. The Court ORDERS the Parties to refile the unredacted versions of their briefs under seal. The Court further ORDERS Defendants to file an explanation with the Court by September 11, 2023 why the material redacted in the parties’ briefs is a trade secret and, if relevant to the Court’s decision, why the redacted material shouldn’t be placed on the Court’s open docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2023 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

: WOODSTREAM : CASE NO. 1:23-cv-294 CORPORATION, : : OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff, : [Resolving Doc. 42, 43] : v. : : NATURE’S WAY BIRD : PRODUCTS, LLC, : : Defendant.

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:

In this patent infringement matter, Plaintiff Woodstream Corporation moved for a stipulated entry of a protected order.1 Defendant Nature’s Way moved for leave to file under seal its response brief and accompanying exhibits, pursuant to the stipulated protective order.2 Both parties subsequently filed briefs with redacted materials.3 The Sixth Circuit applies a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.4 The burden of overcoming that presumption is borne by the party that seeks to seal the records.5 This party must show that “disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury.”6 Only “’trade secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege . . . and information required by statute to be maintained in confidence . . .’ is typically enough

1 Doc. 42. 2 Doc. 43. 3 Doc. 44, 45. 4 , 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing , 710 F.2d 1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). 5 to overcome the presumption of access.”7 In light of this standard, the scope of Plaintiff’s proposed protective order is overbroad.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, with the modifications described in the attached order. The Court ORDERS the Parties to refile the unredacted versions of their briefs under seal. The Court further ORDERS Defendants to file an explanation with the Court by September 11, 2023 why the material redacted in the parties’ briefs is a trade secret and, if relevant to the Court’s decision, why the redacted material shouldn’t be placed on the Court’s open docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2023 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Woodstream Corporation v. Nature's Way Bird Products, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodstream-corporation-v-natures-way-bird-products-llc-ohnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack