govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_24-cv-02480-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
                                                   
 
HYDRAFACIAL LLC, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
AESTHETIC MANAGEMENT 
PARTNERS, LLC and AESTHETIC 
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS INC., 
  
 Defendants. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-02480-JPM-tmp 
 
                                                             
 
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFF’S 
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 
______________________________________________________________________________
            
 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction and Supporting Documents, filed June 13, 2025.  (ECF No. 43.)  Plaintiff 
seeks to seal:  
• Exhibits B1 and B6, (ECF Nos. 44-3, 44-4); 
• portions of the Declaration of Karl Leinsing in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction (the “Leinsing Declaration”), (ECF No. 44-1); 
• portions of the Declaration of Vipul Savsani in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction (the “Savsani Declaration”), (ECF No. 44-2); and 
• portions of HydraFacial’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction which directly quote the Exhibits, (ECF No. 42-1). 
 
(Id. at PageID 1108–09.)   
 
There is “a ‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.”  Shane Grp., 
Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (Brown & 
Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1179).  Plaintiff, as the party seeking to seal court records, bears the 
heavy burden of overcoming that “strong presumption.”  Id.  To meet this burden, Plaintiff  must 
Case 2:24-cv-02480-SHL-tmp     Document 45     Filed 06/17/25     Page 1 of 3      PageID
<pageID>
2 
 
show “(1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interests in sealing outweigh 
the public’s right of access; and (3) that the proposed seal is narrowly- tailored.”  Durbin v. C&L 
Tiling Inc., No. 3:18- cv-334-RGJ, 2019 WL 4615409, at *14 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 23, 2019)  (citing 
Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 593-94 (6th Cir. 2016)). 
Here, Plaintiff has met its burden.  Each document Plaintiff seeks to seal contains 
confidential and proprietary materials which warrant sealing.  Exhibit B1 is a spreadsheet which 
“includes confidential sales and financial information dating from 2005 to 2024 regarding the 
commercial success of various HydraFacial products .”  (ECF No. 43 at PageID 1109; ECF No. 
44-3.)  “ Exhibit B6 consists of excerpts from the confidential design history file for the 
HydraFacial Tower containing information on, inter alia, the manufacture, bill of materials, and 
risks associated with the design of the HydraFacial Tower.”  (ECF No. 43 at PageID 1109; ECF 
No. 44-4.)  Because both Exhibits B1 and B6  consist of confidential financial information  and 
design documentation which would cause significant harm if disclosed, the Court GRANTS  
Plaintiff’s request to seal entirely both Exhibit B1 and Exhibit B6.  See Total Quality Logistics, 
LLC v. Riffe , No. 1:19- cv-23, 2020 WL 5849408, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020) (“filing 
under seal is justified because the documents at issue contain confidential business information 
that, if disclosed on the public docket, would give a significant advantage to competitors of the 
parties in this action”). 
Regarding the Leinsing Declaration  a
 nd Savsani Declaration  (collectively, the 
“Declarations”), and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support  of its Motion for Preliminary 
Injunction, Plaintiff seeks to redact only the portions concerning Exhibits B1 and B6.  ( Id. at 
PageID 1110.)   For the same reasons given above, and because Plaintiff seeks the narrower 
Case 2:24-cv-02480-SHL-tmp     Document 45     Filed 06/17/25     Page 2 of 3      PageID
<pageID>
3 
 
course of redaction rather than wholesale sealing,  the Court GRANTS  Plaintiff’s request to 
redact the Leinsing Declaration, Savsani Declaration, and Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support.   
Because Plaintiff has overcome the “‘strong presumption in favor of openness’ as to 
c
ourt records,” its Motion is GRANTED.  See Shane, 825 F.3d at 305.  Exhibits B1 and B6, 
filed as “Under Seal” with Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,  are to remain under 
seal.  (See ECF Nos. 44-3, 44-4.)  The Leinsing Declaration, Savsani Declaration, and Plaintiff’s 
Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, each filed with proposed 
redactions with Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, will remain as redacted.  (See ECF 
Nos. 42-1, 42-2, 42-3, 42-4, 42-5, 42-6, 42-23.)   
SO ORDERED this the 17t h day of June, 2025.  
 
 
       
JON P. McCALLA 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
/s/ Jon P. McCalla
Case 2:24-cv-02480-SHL-tmp     Document 45     Filed 06/17/25     Page 3 of 3      PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight