At the summary judgment stage, CDK made a similar argument that none of the plaintiffs, including vendors like Loop, could establish an antitrust injury because their unauthorized access to the dealer management system violated laws ...

KING COUNTY and CITY OF TACOMA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 WHEREAS, the Parties, through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree to the terms of this stipulation and order for additional protection of confidential documents produced by non-parties; THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, and because the Parties hereto, by and through their respective counsel, have agreed to the following Stipulation and Order Regarding Non-Party Confidentiality Designations, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and having determined that good cause exists for the entry of this Order, the Parties stipulate and request the Court order as follows:

To the extent any subpoenaed non-party deems it appropriate to designate documents produced in this matter as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 24), and to the extent the non-party in good faith believes that the documents it is producing contain material relating to highly sensitive business matters, the disclosure of which could cause direct and substantial harm to the non-party, it may designate such non-party may further designate such documents as

For avoidance of doubt, materials designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” may still be disclosed to the parties’ Outside Counsel of Record as defined at ¶ 4.2.a.

This stipulation and order is binding upon, without limitation, all current and future parties in this action (including their respective corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and attorneys and all other representatives or agents), and their counsel; all other persons or entities authorized under the Stipulated Protective Order or any other order of this Court to receive or view Highly Confidential Material; and all other interested persons or entities with actual or constructive notice of this stipulation and or the Stipulated Protective Order.

Thus, a “particularized showing” under the good-cause standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) will “suffice[ ] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135.

Thus, the compelling reasons standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.

Compelling reasons may justify sealing court records “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes’” such as releasing trade secrets.

The Supreme Court has instructed that a sealing order should be “limited to information that was actually sensitive,” that is only the parts of the material necessary to protect the compelling interest.

The parties were ordered to file redacted versions of their opening and responsive post-trial briefs and findings of fact and conclusions of law by January 3, 2025.