Finn Corporation et al v. Precision Machine & Manufacturing, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
FINN CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRECISION MACHINE &
MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-418
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER
Plaintiffs Finn Corporation and Express Blower, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have
filed a Motion for Leave to File Exhibit 1 to the Amended Complaint Under Seal (Doc. 10)
(the “Motion”). Defendant Precision Machine & Manufacturing, Inc. (“Precision”) has not
filed any opposition to the Motion, so the Court will construe the Motion as unopposed.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party seeking to seal court records bears the heavy burden of overcoming the “strong
presumption in favor of openness” as to court records. Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield,
825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d
1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). This presumption arises because “[t]he public has a strong interest
in obtaining the information contained in the court record…[including] an interest in
ascertaining what evidence and records” a court relies upon in making its decision. Lipman v.
Budish, 974 F.3d 726, 753 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1180–81).
Indeed, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.”
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983).
Case: 1:25-cv-00418-JPH Doc #: 14 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
In order to meet its substantial burden, the party seeking to seal court records “must
show three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in
sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the request is
narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 638 (6th Cir. 2019).
The moving party must therefore “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of
secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06 (quoting Baxter
Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). Likewise, when a district court
elects to seal court records, it must set forth specific findings and conclusions that justify
nondisclosure to the public. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs seek to seal Exhibit 1 to the Amended Complaint, a four-page Memorandum
of Understanding between Plaintiffs and Precision, because Exhibit 1 contains sensitive
business information, such as confidential pricing data for parts purchased by Plaintiffs for
their products. Doc. 10, PageID 65. Plaintiffs contend that the information in Exhibit 1 is
central to Plaintiffs’ business strategy and would provide its competitors an advantage and
direct access to Plaintiffs’ business model if publicly disclosed. Id. at PageID 65–66.
Courts in this District routinely find that there is a compelling interest in sealing
documents that contain sensitive business information. See Exec. Jet Mgmt. Inc. v. Longbow
Enters. LLC, No. 1:21-cv-74, 2021 WL 4952705, at *2 (S.D. Ohio, Apr. 1, 2021); Veritas
Independent Partners, LLC v. Ohio Nat’l Life Ins., Co., No. 1:18-cv-769, 2024 WL 986280, at *13–
14 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 7, 2024). Thus, because Plaintiffs seek to protect sensitive business
information and prevent its disclosure to competitors, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have
presented a compelling reason to seal Exhibit 1. Total Quality Logistics v. Riffe, No. 1:19-cv-23,
Case: 1:25-cv-00418-JPH Doc #: 14 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
2020 WL 5849408, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2020) (quoting Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v.
Covidien, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-871, 2017 WL 4168290, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2017) (“This
Court has repeatedly ‘recognized that protecting confidential information that would
otherwise allow competitors an inside look at a company’s business strategies is a compelling
reason to restrict public access to filings.’”). Further, the request to seal is no greater than
necessary and there is no reason to believe that the information will be necessary for the public
to understand or appreciate the substance of any forthcoming decisions in this matter. See,
e.g., London Comput. Sys. Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-696, 2019 WL 4110516, at *4 (S.D.
Ohio Aug. 29, 2019) (“[T]he public will not need to view the parties’ highly confidential
business information to understand the events giving rise to this dispute, or the arguments
made in that motion.”). The entirety of the Amended Complaint and remaining exhibits will
be available to the public. Further, by virtue of Plaintiffs’ description of Exhibit 1 in its
Motion, the public will have sufficient information to appreciate the relevance and
importance of the document. Doc. 10, PageID 66.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Plaintiff
is ORDERED to file Exhibit 1 under seal within 7 days of the date of this Order. In light of
the Amended Complaint (Doc. 9) and the instant Motion, Plaintiffs’ previous Motion for
Leave to File Exhibit to Complaint Under Seal (Doc. 2) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 24, 2025
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00418-JPH Doc #: 14 Filed: 11/24/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>