govinfo:USCOURTS-moed-4_26-cv-00591-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
LATHAM QUALITY, INC.,         ) 
            )  
 Plaintiff,          ) 
v.            ) Case No. 4:26-cv-00591-MAL 
            )  
BAYER CROPSCIENCE LLC, et al.       ) 
            )  
Defendants.                 ) 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
 Before the Court is Latham Quality’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal.  Doc. 2.  The 
Motion was filed pursuant to E.D. Mo. Local Rule 13.05(A)(4), which establishes procedures 
for filing sealed documents.  Doc. 2 at 1.  Latham requests that the Court seal the complaint 
pending a conference with the Defendant, Bayer, to determine which portions of the complaint 
Bayer considers to be confidential.  Doc. 2 at ¶ 6.  The Motion for Leave to File Under Seal is 
unopposed.  See Doc. 2; Doc. 30.  Bayer has filed a memorandum in support, outlining the 
paragraphs they believe must be kept under seal.  Doc. 30.  Because the memorandum in support 
asks for specific paragraphs to remain under seal indefinitely, it requests different action from 
the Court, and the Court will construe it as a separate motion.  For the reasons set forth below, 
the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, Doc. 2, is GRANTED in part.  The complaint will 
remain sealed pending the Court’s ruling on the Memorandum in Support, Doc. 30.  Latham 
may, up to 14 days from the date of this order, file a response to the Memorandum in Support. 
Doc. 30.  If they do so, Bayer may, up to seven days after the response is entered, file a reply.   
DISCUSSION 
There is a “common-law right of access to judicial records.”  IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 
F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013).  “The presumption of public access to judicial records may be 
overcome if the party seeking to keep the records under seal provides compelling reasons for 
doing so.”  Flynt v. Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 2018) (citing In re Neal, 461 F.3d 
1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006)).  “[T]he weight to be given the presumption of access must be 
governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and [the] 
resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.”  IDT Corp., 709 F.3d 
at 1224 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)).   
Case: 4:26-cv-00591-MAL     Doc. #:  32     Filed: 06/02/26     Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
The parties have submitted legal memoranda in support of the motion, and the motion 
states that the documents sought to be filed under seal contain highly sensitive, non-public 
business and financial information, specifically pricing information.  See Doc. 30.  Latham 
argues that temporary sealing pending a decision on permanent sealing is necessary to comply 
with their contractual obligation to keep the information confidential.  Doc. 2 at ¶ 5.  Bayer 
argues the information must be kept confidential because it contains private financial and 
strategic information that could be exploited by competitors.  Doc. 30 at 6–7.  The Plaintiff has 
also filed a copy of the complaint on the public docket that redacts the information Bayer claims 
is sensitive.  C.f. Doc. 30 with Doc. 31.  At least while the Court considers the Motion in 
Support, the Court finds these redactions to be reasonable in scope and limited to only 
information that is sensitive in nature.  
Upon review of the documents at issue, the Court finds that the material the parties move 
to file under seal is sensitive and the parties’ need to maintain confidentiality in the material 
outweighs the public’s right of access.  See IDT Corp., 709 F.3d at 1224 (affirming the district 
court’s decision to seal certain “confidential and competitively sensitive business information”); 
LifeScience Techs., LLC v. Mercy Health, No. 4:21-CV-01279-SEP, 2025 WL 2689195 at *1 
(E.D. Mo. Sept. 19, 2025). 
Accordingly, 
 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, Doc. [2], is 
GRANTED in part. The complaint will remain sealed pending the Court’s ruling on the 
Memorandum in Support, Doc. 30.  Latham may, up to 14 days from the date of this order, file a 
response to the Memorandum in Support.  Doc. 30.  If they do so, Bayer may, up to 7 days after 
the response is entered, file a reply.   
   
Dated this 2
nd day of June, 2026. 
   
     
  MARIA A. LANAHAN 
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case: 4:26-cv-00591-MAL     Doc. #:  32     Filed: 06/02/26     Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight