`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`OANDA CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GAIN CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., and
`GAIN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 20-05784-ZNQ-DEA
`
`ORDER GRANTING
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`DOCUMENT FILED
`ELECTRONICALLY
`
`THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court upon the Motion of Defendants
`
`GAIN Capital Holdings, Inc. and GAIN Capital Group, LLC (“Defendants”) pursuant to Local
`
`Civil Rule 5.3(c), to permanently seal portions of Plaintiff OANDA Corporation’s (“Plaintiff”)
`
`January 7, 2022 Letter to the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. (ECF No. 157) (the
`
`“Confidential Document”); and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support of
`
`the within Motion; and the Court having found that the standards of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3)
`
`have been met and support the sealing of the Confidential Document as set forth below; and for
`
`the reasons set forth in the record of the proceedings, and for other and good cause having been
`
`shown;
`
`The Court adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
`
`I.
`
`The Nature of the Materials or Proceedings at Issue
`
`A.
`
`Findings of Fact
`
`1.
`
`Defendants seek to permanently seal its confidential information in the
`
`Confidential Document.
`
`2.
`
`Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) requires the moving party to show:
`
`(a)
`
`the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue;
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 169 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 5021
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`the legitimate private or public interests which warrant the relief sought;
`
`the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought
`is not granted; and
`
`why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.
`
`3.
`
`The Confidential Document that is the subject of this Motion reveal,
`
`contains and/or reflects sensitive proprietary commercial and business information regarding
`
`Defendants’ products and has been designated as such under the Discovery Confidentiality Order
`
`entered in this matter (ECF No. 43). Further, this proprietary information is presently confidential
`
`and unavailable to the public.
`
`B.
`
`Conclusions of Law
`
`4.
`
`Common law recognizes a public right of access to judicial proceedings and
`
`records. Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1988)). The party seeking to seal any part
`
`of a judicial record bears the burden of demonstrating that “the material is the kind of information
`
`that courts will protect.” Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting
`
`Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be
`
`disclosed to the public. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) allows the court to protect materials containing
`
`“trade secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information[,]” upon
`
`motion by a party, to prevent harm to a litigant’s competitive standing in the marketplace. See
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889-91 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
`
`II.
`
`The Legitimate Private or Public Interest That Warrants the Relief Sought
`
`A.
`
`Findings of Fact
`
`6.
`
`The Confidential Document sought to be sealed consists of information that
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 169 Filed 04/10/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 5022
`
`Defendants assert is confidential and proprietary.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants have an interest in not publicly disclosing this information, and
`
`relies on the confidentiality of such information to gain a competitive advantage in the online
`
`trading industry.
`
`B.
`
`Conclusions of Law
`
`8.
`
`Courts have recognized that the presumption of public access is not absolute
`
`and may be rebutted. Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662
`
`(3d Cir. 1991). “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has
`
`been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Littlejohn,
`
`851 F.2d at 678 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
`
`9.
`
`Courts may deny access to and seal a document when it encompasses
`
`business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing. See Littlejohn, 851 F.2d
`
`at 678 (citations omitted).
`
`10.
`
`The District of New Jersey has held that the inclusion of trade secrets and
`
`other confidential information in documents warrant the sealing of such documents. “A well-
`
`settled exception to the right of access is the ‘protection of a party’s interest in confidential
`
`commercial information, such as a trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable
`
`harm.’” In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) (citation omitted).
`
`“The presence of trade secrets or other confidential information weighs against public access and,
`
`accordingly, documents containing such information may be protected from disclosure.” Id.
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 169 Filed 04/10/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 5023
`
`III.
`
`Clearly Defined and Serious Injury Would Result if the Relief Sought Is Not Granted
`
`A.
`
`Findings of Fact
`
`11.
`
`In light of its reference to and disclosure of non-public business information
`
`that is otherwise unavailable to third parties, the public disclosure of the Confidential Document
`
`would pose a substantial risk of harm to Defendants’ legitimate proprietary interests and
`
`competitive position.
`
`12.
`
`If the Confidential Document were to become publicly available,
`
`Defendants’ competitors could potentially use that information in the highly competitive online
`
`trading marketplace.
`
`B.
`
`Conclusions of Law
`
`13.
`
`The District Court has discretion to balance the factors for and against
`
`access to court documents. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994).
`
`14.
`
`Protection of a party’s interest in confidential commercial information, such
`
`as a trade secret, is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm, and is clearly defined as a serious injury.
`
`See Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1071.
`
`IV.
`
`No Less Restrictive Alternative is Available
`
`A.
`
`Findings of Fact
`
`15.
`
`The request to seal the Confidential Document is tailored to restrict access
`
`only to Defendants’ confidential and proprietary nonpublic business information.
`
`16.
`
`The disclosure of this confidential, proprietary information would pose a
`
`financial and competitive risk to Defendants. Accordingly, the only way to protect Defendants’
`
`confidential interests is to seal the Confidential Document.
`
`17.
`
`Only those portions of the Confidential Document containing confidential
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05784-ZNQ-DEA Document 169 Filed 04/10/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 5024
`
`and proprietary information will be sealed.
`
`B.
`
`Conclusions of Law
`
`18.
`
`The sealing of confidential documents and information is an accepted
`
`practice in the District of New Jersey. See, e.g., In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d
`
`653 (D.N.J. 2004).
`
`19.
`
`Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3), the party seeking to seal documents must
`
`describe why no less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is available.
`
`20.
`
`For all the above reasons, and because Defendants’ interests in their
`
`confidential information identified herein outweigh the minimal, if any, public interest in its
`
`disclosure, there is good cause to grant the instant Motion to Seal with respect to Defendants’
`
`confidential information identified below.
`
`THEREFORE, for the above reasons, it is on this ________ day of ________________,
`
`2023,
`
`ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), to permanently
`
`seal portions of Plaintiff’s January 7, 2022 Letter to the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J.
`
`(ECF No. 157) is hereby GRANTED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED that Plaintiff’s January 7, 2022 Letter to the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert,
`
`U.S.M.J. (ECF No. 157) shall be permanently sealed and maintained under seal by the Court.
`
`
`
`HONORABLE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`5
`
`10th
`
`April
`
`--terminates ECF No. 162
`
`