Bender et al v. Wiegand Sports GmbH et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:23-cv-01511-JKB Document184 _ Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MARY ANN BENDER, et al. *
Plaintiffs, x
y. * CIVIL NO. JKB-23-1511
‘WIEGAND SPORTS GmbH, et al. * |
Defendants. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On January 16, 2026, in response to pending motions, the parties filed several opposition
briefs (ECF Nos. 165, 166, 168, 172, 173, 175, 176, 179, and 183) and several motions to seal’
confidential exhibits/attachments (ECF Nos. 164, 170, 171, 174, 177, and 180) pursuant to the
parties’ stipulated protective order.

Plaintiffs Mary Ann Bender and Eric Piper filed their opposition briefs and all exhibits
thereto (ECF Nos. 165, 172, and 183) under seal, and they filed three motions to seal (ECF Nos.
164, 171, and 174). Plaintiffs’ motions to seal will be granted insofar as they request sealing of
the exhibits/attachments to their briefs, but will be denied with respect to the sealing of the
opposition briefs themselves. Two of Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 164 and 174) are
deficient in that they do not request, much less justify, sealing Plaintiffs? opposition briefs
themselves (ECF Nos. 165 and 183), as opposed to the exhibits/attachments thereto. Plaintiffs’
- third motion to seal (ECF No. 171) does at least appear to request the sealing of both the

corresponding opposition brief (ECF No. 172) and the exhibits/attachments thereto (though,

confusingly, it refers to its opposition brief as an “Opposition Motion” and sometimes just a

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:23-cv-01511-JKB Document184 _ Filed 01/29/26 Page2of3

“Motion”), but it does not justify sealing the opposition brief in its entirety, as many parts of the
brief are plainly not confidential. All three of Plaintiffs’ briefs wil! remain sealed as filed, but
Plaintiffs will be required to either refile the briefs (ECF Nos. 165, 172, and 183) on the public
docket, or, insofar as the briefs reveal or discuss confidential information that Plaintiffs believe
should remain under seal, to refile on the public docket versions of the briefs that have all
confidential information redacted, along with motions to seal the redacted information. Plaintiffs
need not refile the exhibits/attachments to these briefs, which will remain sealed as filed.
Defendants’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 170, 177, and 180) have been properly filed and
will be granted. |
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
.1. Defendants’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 170, 177, and 180) are GRANTED;

2. Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 164, 171, and 174) are GRANTED insofar as they
request sealing of all exhibits/attachments to their briefs (ECF Nos. 165, 172, and 183),
which shall remain SEALED; |

3. Plaintiffs’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 164, 171, and 174) are DENIED insofar as they
request sealing of the entirety of Plaintiffs’ briefs themselves (ECF Nos. 165, 172, and
183), though such briefs shall remain SEALED to permit revised filings as described
below; and

4. Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to either refile their briefs (ECF Nos. 165, 172, and 183)
on the public docket, or, insofar as the briefs reveal or discuss confidential information that
Plaintiffs believe should remain under seal, to refile on the public docket versions of the
briefs that have all confidential information redacted, along with motions to seal the

redacted information, within seven (7) days of this Order.

Case 1:23-cv-01511-JKB Document184 Filed 01/29/26 Page3of3

DATED this 2 day of January, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

Dassen th hese

James K. Bredar
United States District Judge