Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.Com, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
OVERSTOCK.COM, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-2324-JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court are the parties’ Joint Motions to Seal Documents (Docs. 198, 206)
associated with the parties’ summary judgment and Daubert filings. The parties state that their
most recent joint motion, which is also joined by Proponent and Non-Party Abt Electronics, Inc.,
supersedes all prior requests related to Doc. 148 (Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to
Overstock.com’s Motion to Strike Mr. Blok’s Supplemental Report), Doc. 175 (Overstock’s
Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Justin Blok), and Doc. 177 (Overstock’s Motion
for Summary Judgment). The motion also addresses Doc. 190 (Lexos’s Response to Overstock’s
Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Justin Blok), and Doc. 202 (Overstock’s Reply in
Support of its Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Justin Blok). As described below,
the Court grants in part, denies in part, and finds moot in part the parties’ motions to seal.
I. 	Background
The movants specifically ask the Court to seal the documents listed in the following
table. Many of these documents have been previously addressed in other orders, which are noted
in the last column:
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 224 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Doc. No. 	Description 	Redaction
Level3
Past Order(s)
148-3 	Ex. 3 – Excerpts of the Original Blok
Report
Partial 	153
148-4 	Ex. 4 – Excerpts of the Supplemental
Blok Report
Partial 	153
148-9 	Ex. 4 – Excerpts of the Mody Rebuttal
Report
Partial 	153
175 	Overstock’s Blok Daubert Motion 	Partial 	195, 199
175-1 	Ex. 1 – Excerpts of the Original Blok
Report
Partial 	195, 199
175-2 	Ex. 2 – Excerpts from the Feb. 17, 2025
Blok Deposition
Partial 	195, 199
175-3 	Ex. 3 – Excerpts of the Supplemental
Blok Report
Partial 	195, 199
175-4 	Ex. 4 – Ace Hardware Settlement
Agreement
Entire Exhibit 	195, 199
175-5 	Ex. 5 – Excerpts from the May 29, 2025
Blok Deposition
Partial 	195, 199
175-6 	Ex. 6 – Summary of Lexos Settlement
Agreements
Partial 	195, 199
175-7 	Ex. 7 – Abt Settlement Agreement 	Entire Exhibit 	195, 199
175-8 	Ex. 8 – CDW Settlement Agreement 	Entire Exhibit 	195, 199
175-9 	Ex. 9 – NTE Settlement Agreement 	Entire Exhibit 	195, 199
175-12 	Ex. 12 – Excerpts from the Abt
Settlement Proposal
Partial 	195, 199
175-15 	Ex. 15 – Email between Lexos and NTE 	Entire Exhibit 	195, 199
177 	Overstock Motion for Summary Judgment 	Partial 	195
177-25 	Ex. 25 – RPX Settlement Agreement 	Entire Exhibit 	195
177-26 	Ex. 26 – eBay Settlement Agreement 	Entire Exhibit 	195
190 	Lexos Opposition to Overstock’s Blok
Daubert Motion
Partial
190-2 	Ex. 1 – Excerpts of the Original Blok
Report
Partial
190-3 	Ex. 2 – Excerpts from the Feb. 17, 2025
Blok Deposition
Partial
190-5 	Ex. 4 – Email between Lexos and NTE 	Entire Exhibit
190-8 	Ex. 7 – Excerpts of the Supplemental
Blok Report
Partial
190-9 	Ex. 8 – Compilation of documents relied
upon by Mr. Blok
Entire Exhibit
190-15 	Ex. 14 – Office Depot Settlement
Agreement
Entire Exhibit
202 	Overstock Reply in Support of its Blok
Daubert Motion
Partial
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 224 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 6

3
II. 	Standard for Motions to Seal
“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”1 This
right is based on the public’s interest “in understanding disputes that are presented to a public
forum for resolution” and “in assuring that the courts are fairly run and judges are honest.”2 This
right of access, however, “is not absolute.”3 The Court may, in its discretion, “seal documents if
the public’s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.”4 “The party seeking to
overcome the presumption bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs
the presumption.”5 The Court must be mindful that “where documents are used to determine
litigants’ substantive legal rights, a strong presumption of access attaches.” 6
In this district, when a party files a document provisionally under seal, that party must
“[i]mmediately after the provisional under-seal filing . . . file a notice of proposed sealed
record.”7 The point of this part of the procedure is to provide notice to the “Proponent” of the
document that it is being submitted for filing in this case so that the Proponent can file a motion
to seal the document. Then, if the “Proponent seeks to maintain any portion of the document
under seal,” the Proponent “must file a motion to seal or redact in the public record.”8 It is due
within 7 days after the document is filed provisionally under seal.9
1 Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149
(10th Cir. 2007)).
2 Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980).
3 Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292 (quoting Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149).
4 Id. (quoting United States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985)).
5 Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149 (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988)).
6 Colony Ins. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1242 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006)).
7 D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(b).
8 D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c).
9 Id.
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 224 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Under D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c), a party moving to seal must provide: (1) “a description of
the specific portions of the document” that the Proponent wants to seal or redact, which is
“narrowly tailored to the asserted confidentiality interest”; (2) the asserted confidentiality interest
and why it outweighs the right of public access; (3) “a clearly defined and serious injury that
would result in the absence of restricting public access”; and (4) “why no lesser alternative is
practicable or why restricting public access will adequately protect the confidentiality interest in
question.”10
III. 	Discussion
Before the Court proceeds to consider the merits of the parties’ requests, it must address
the procedural problems with this motion: (1) the parties ask the Court to seal several documents
that have already been addressed by this Court’s or Judge Mitchell’s prior rulings; and (2) the
parties’ motion is untimely as to several documents.
The parties state that they intend for this motion to “supersede the prior requests relating
to the referenced motions and/or exhibits,” for consistency, and in a footnote list the following:
Docs. 145, 176, 178, 183, 191, and 198. 11 All but the last of these docket entries are Notices of
Proposed Sealed Record that were filed at the time the provisionally-sealed documents were
filed. There is no provision in the rule that allows the parties to retroactively amend or supersede
these notices by motion. The Court has already ruled on motions to seal several of the
documents addressed in this motion, yet the parties do not move to reconsider the earlier rulings
by the undersigned, or object under Rule 72 to Judge Mitchell’s prior Order under the
appropriate standards.
10 D. Kan. R. 5.4.2(c)(1)–(4).
11 Doc. 206 n.1.
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 224 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Moreover, under the local rule, “[t]he motion [to seal or redact] must be filed within 7
days after the document is filed provisionally under seal.”12 This motion is only timely with
respect to the documents provisionally-filed under seal on or after July 7, 2025. 13 The parties
wholly fail to address why the Court should consider this motion to the extent it is untimely.
Therefore, the Court denies the motion to seal documents addressed in Judge Mitchell’s
prior Order denying the motion to seal Docs. 148-3, 148-4, and 148-9.14 The motion is denied as
untimely as to Docs. 175-5, 175-15, and 177. 15 The Court finds the motion moot as to the
documents that this Court has already sealed: Docs. 177-25, 177-26.
The remaining documents identified by the parties in their motion are briefs and exhibits
associated with Overstock’s motion to exclude Lexos’s damages expert, Justin Blok. The Court
has determined that the motion to exclude Mr. Blok’s testimony is moot in light of its summary-
judgment ruling. Because the Court need not rule on this motion or consider the documents
associated with it, the Court will allow these documents to remain under seal and directs the
Clerk to remove the provisional designations from these remaining documents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the parties’ Joint Motion to
Seal Documents (Doc. 206) is granted in part, denied in part, and moot in part. The Court
12 D. Kan. R. 5.4.2(c).
13 The original joint motion to seal (Doc. 198) was filed within 7 days of the documents filed on July 7,
2025, and the Court had not ruled on that motion before the parties submitted this amended, updated motion on July
28, 2025, the deadline the Court had provided to non-party Abt to file its motion to seal a limited number of
documents associated with Doc. 175. The Court considers this motion timely as to those specific documents
addressed in Doc. 199, as well as the subsequent documents associated with Docs. 190 and 202.
14 Doc. 153.
15 On July 11, 2025, this Court ordered these documents unsealed because no party filed a timely motion to
seal them. Doc. 195. After Abt filed a motion for additional time to file a motion to seal, the Court granted it an
extension of time to move to seal or redact a limited universe of documents: Defendant’s Daubert motion (Doc.
175), and Exhibits 1–3, 6, and 12 attached thereto (Docs. 175-1, 175-2, 175-3, 175-6, and 175-12). The Court did
not give the parties blanket leave to file motions to seal, or to file untimely motions to seal on the documents it had
already ruled on.
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 224 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 6

6
denies the motion to seal Docs. 148-3, 148-4, 148-9, 175-5, 175-15, and 177. The motion to seal
is moot as to Docs. 177-25, 177-26. The motion to seal is granted as to all other documents.
The Clerk is directed to remove the provisional designation from Docs. 175, 175-1 through 175-
4, 175-6 through 175-9, 175-12, 190, 190-2, 190-3, 190-5, 190-8, 190-9, 190-15, and 202. The
filing party shall file the redacted versions of the necessary documents on the public record
forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT that the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal
Documents (Doc. 198) is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2026
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-02324-JAR-ADM Document 224 Filed 03/10/26 Page 6 of 6