Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-2_24-cv-00181-1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
at Covington
CELLMARK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT WEBSTER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
*** *** *** ***
On April 7, 2026, the Court issued an Order requiring the parties to
demonstrate why any document requested to be filed under seal should remain
sealed. [Dkt. 1 84]. Robert Webster responded to the Order requesting that one
document remain sealed. [Dkt. 186 at 1]. CellMark’s response requests that several
documents remain sealed. [Dkt. 187 at 2 –5]. The Court agrees with both Webster
and CellMark that, aside from one exception, their documents should be protected
from public disclosure as specified below.
There is a presumption that documents filed with the court should be available
for the public’s review. Grae v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 134 F.4th 927, 930 (6th Cir. 2025).
“Thus, under rules long settled in this circuit, ‘[o]nly the most compelling reasons can
justify non-disclosure of judicial records.’” Id. (quoting Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)). The party seeking to seal a
document bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of openness, which is a
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 1 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2
heavy burden. Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305. And even if a compelling reason is shown
to justify “why certain documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal itself
must be narrowly tailored to serve that reason.” Id. So a district court that seals
court documents must set forth its findings for why nondisclosure to the public is
justified, stating: (1) “why the interests in support of nondisclosure are compelling”;
(2) “why the interests supporting access are less so”; and (3) “why the seal itself is no
broader than necessary.” Id. at 306 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v.
FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)).
Webster asks that he be granted leave to file a redacted version of Exhibit 40
to his deposition taken on January 14, 2026, [Dkt. 186 at 1 (citing Dkt. 123-26)]. That
document is a compilation of financial records that contains “sensitive personal and
financial information.” [Id.]. Webster argues that permitting him to file a redacted
copy in the public record “protects the legitimate privacy interests of third parties
and minimizes the risk of identity theft or misuse of personal data, while preserving
the public’s right of access to the judicial record to the fullest extent possible.” [Id.].
Webster has demonstrated a compelling reason justifying a partial seal of the
document he identifies. That reason is to protect privacy interests of third parties by
avoiding the needless publication of sensitive personal financial information . Other
courts have recognized this as a compelling reason justifying sealing documents. See
e.g., Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 308 (“[T]he privacy interests of innocent third parties
should weigh heavily in a court ’s balancing equation.” (quoting United States v.
Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995) )). The sensitive information that will be
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 2 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
3
redacted has no bearing on the issues before the Court, making the public’s interest
in access to the information less compelling . See Brown & Williamson , 710 F.2d at
1181 (“The public has an interest in ascertaining what evidence and records the
District Court and this Court have relied upon in reaching our decisions.”) ; see also
Bodenhamer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-00221-TRM-CHS, 2021 WL 6275231,
at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2021) (allowing medical records to be filed under seal because
those records, standing alone, provide no benefit to the general public, but requiring
any discussions of relevant medical records in briefs to appear on the public docket
because they “are relevant to the issues upon which the Court will rule and are
necessary for the public to understand the rationale of the Court’s decision”) . And
the seal is narrowly tailored to further this compelling reason, as the entire document
will not be sealed and only the limited portions with sensitive personal information
will be redacted. See Wild Flavors, Inc. v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. , No. 2:24-
cv-00006-SCM-CJS, 2025 WL 4112925 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 2, 2025) . The Court thus
determines that Webster has overcome the presumption of public access and he
should be permitted to file a partially redacted version into the public record.
CellMark similarly carries its burden of overcoming the presumption of
openness, except for one document. It identifies a handful of documents that it wishes
to remain sealed in their entiret y: [ Dkt. 139-1; Dkt. 139 -2; Dkt. 139 -3; Dkt. 139 -4;
Dkt. 139 -5; Dkt. 139 -6; Dkt. 140-7; Dkt. 140- 8; Dkt. 154 -3.]
1 [Dkt. 140-7] lists
1 CellMark, Inc. states that it asks for [Dkt. 140 -6] and [Dkt. 140 -7], both filed
conventionally, to remain sealed. [Dkt. 187 at 2, 4]. A review of the filings in this
case shows that the two filings requested by CellMark to remain sealed in fact appear
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 3 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
4
CellMark’s sales and gross profits for over 250 of its customers. [Dkt. 187 at 2].
CellMark says that it should be sealed because almost all of those customer accounts
are not a subject of this dispute, and CellMark’s customer list and margins are likely
protected trade secret information. [ Id.]. CellMark makes the same argument for
[Dkt. 140-7], which is a list of CellMark’s film sales that contains customer lists and
pricing information not at issue in this case. [Id.].
For the purpose of ruling on CellMark’s request to seal these documents, the
Court does not take a position on whether they contain actual trade secrets. But
CellMark has nonetheless shown a compelling interest in sealing [ Dkt. 140-7] and
[Dkt. 140-8]. The fact that these documents contain information that might qualify
as trade secrets is a sufficient basis for sealing them at this juncture. Cf. Kondash v.
Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 638 (6th Cir. 2019) (“While the existence of a
trade secret will generally satisfy a party’s burden of showing a compelling reason
exists for sealing documents, even if a trade secret does not exist, a court may still
find a compelling reason exists . . . .” (citing Shane Grp. , 825 F.3d at 308) ). Sealing
is appropriate where a party “has identified claimed trade secrets” and has made
more than “merely conclusory arguments that sealing is necessary to protect its
general business practices or confidential business information.” Yoe v. Crescent Sock
Co., No. 1:15-cv-3-SKL, 2016 WL 11657183, at *2–3 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2016). Such
is the case here, where CellMark cites deposition testimony from Webster himself,
at [Dkt. 140-7] and [Dkt. 140-8]. The Court thus identifies these documents as they
appear in the Court’s files rather than as CellMark identified them in [Dkt. 187].
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 4 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
5
Goran Sohl of Fortex Americas , LLC, and Jimmy Derrico of CellMark that suggest
the information contained therein is confidential (i.e., not publicly known) , highly
sensitive and subject to appropriation, and are trade secrets. [Dkt. 187 at 2–4]. Thus,
there is adequate justification for sealing [ Dkt. 140-7] and [Dkt. 140-8]. And g iven
that the documents themselves are the alleged trade secrets, sealing them entirely is
a sufficiently narrow means of protecting that compelling interest.2
Next, CellMark seeks to seal [Dkt. 139-1] to [Dkt. 139-6], which are profit and
loss statements from 2019 to 2024. [ Dkt. 187 at 4– 5]. CellMark argues that they
must be sealed because they are confidential and not publicly available and their
disclosure would reveal details about many aspects of its business. [Id.]. Allowing
them into the public record would purportedly provide a competitor of CellMark a
complete view of its finances, hindering its ability to compete. [ Id. at 5]. These are
compelling reasons justifying nondisclosure. Courts in this circuit “ have recognized
strong interests in shielding confidential financial records and private revenue
information ‘from public view.’” Cheese Hog Mfg., LLC v. ReddyMade, LLC, No. 1:23-
cv-00155-JPH, 2025 WL 4660309, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2025) (quoting Goodman
v. J.P. Morgan Inv. Mgmt. , Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 759, 784 (S.D. Ohio 2018)) . This
interest is of particular importance here, where the public disclosure of the
2 This is, of course, not a conclusion that these documents actually are trade secrets.
Instead, it is merely a conclusion that CellMark has sufficiently demonstrated they
may contain trade secrets such that they should be sealed at this time. See Yoe v.
Crescent Sock Co., No. 1:15-cv-3-SKL, 2016 WL 11657183, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15,
2016) (concluding “there may be trade secrets at issue” which justifies sealing an
exhibit “at this time” (emphasis added)).
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 5 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
6
documents “would allow competitors to gain unprecedented insight into the
company’s financial status” and nondisclosure “is critical to protecting the company’s
highly proprietary information.” Russell v. CSK Auto, Inc. , No. 14-14230, 2017 WL
1734420, at *3 (E.D. Mich. May 4, 2017). Further, the Court is unaware of authority
supporting the public’s interest in accessing this confidential information that would
outweigh CellMark’s strong interest in maintaining its confidentiality. Thus, keeping
all of th e documents under seal is sufficient tailoring to support CellMark’s
compelling justification.
Finally, CellMark argues that [Dkt. 154 -3], a nondisclosure agreement
between CellMark and G3 Enterprises, Inc. , should remain sealed . [Dkt. 187 at 5].
As justification, CellMark states that only limited portions of the agreement are at
issue and that it has a confidentiality requirement. [ Id.]. But CellMark
acknowledges, correctly, that the confidentiality requirement “does not require the
Court to keep the document[] under seal.” [Id.]. This is because “[t]he existence of a
confidentiality agreement is not, by itself, a reason to keep this record sealed.” In re
Black Diamond Mining Co., No. 15-96-ART, 2016 WL 4433356, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug.
18, 2016) ; see also Brown & Williamson , 710 F.2d at 118 0 ( holding that a
“confidentiality agreement between the parties does not bind the court in any way”);
LR 5.6(c) . The Court finds that CellMark has not met its burden of providing a
compelling reason justifying nondisclosure of this document, and it will be unsealed.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 6 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
7
1) Robert Webster’s Motion for L eave to Seal a Document, [Dkt. 110], is
DENIED as moot.
2) CellMark, Inc.’s Motions for L eave to Seal, [Dkt. 135; Dkt. 152; Dkt.
169], are DENIED as moot.
3) Webster’s Motion to Redact Personal Financial Information, [Dkt. 186],
is GRANTED, and Webster shall file a redacted version of [Dkt. 123-26] attached to
a notice of filing as soon as practicable following the entry of this Order. [ Dkt. 123-
26] shall REMAIN SEALED.
4) CellMark’s Response to the Court’s April 7 Order, [Dkt. 18 7], is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
a. [Dkt. 123-26; Dkt. 140-7; Dkt. 140-8; Dkt. 139-1; Dkt. 139-2; Dkt.
139-3; Dkt. 139 -4; Dkt. 139 -5; Dkt. 139 -6] shall REMAIN
SEALED.
b. The Clerk’s office is DIRECTED to UNSEAL all other
documents filed under seal by any party, including [Dkt. 154-3].
Signed this 8th day of May, 2026.
Case: 2:24-cv-00181-SCM-CJS Doc #: 205 Filed: 05/08/26 Page: 7 of 7 - Page
ID#: <pageID>