Dmarcian, Inc. v. DMARC Advisor BV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00067-MR
DMARCIAN, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
DMARC ADVISOR BV, )
f/k/a dmarcian Europe BV,
)
Defendant. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Amended Motion
to Seal Exhibits in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 347].
The Plaintiff, through counsel, moves the Court for leave to file certain
exhibits to Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docs. 325-1, 325-2] under seal in this case. For grounds, counsel
states that the exhibits include confidential business information and trade
secrets. [Doc. 347]. On March 28, 2024, the Defendant filed a Brief in Partial
Opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion. [Doc. 348]. On April 4, 2024, the Plaintiff
filed a Reply. [Doc. 349].
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 353 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 3

2
Before sealing a court document, the Court must “(1) provide public
notice of the request to seal and allow interested parties a reasonable
opportunity to object, (2) consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the
documents, and (3) provide specific reasons and factual findings supporting
its decision to seal the documents and for rejecting the alternatives.”
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
In the present case, the public has been provided with adequate notice
and an opportunity to object to the Plaintiff’s motion. The Plaintiff filed his
motion on March 14, 2024, and it has been accessible to the public through
the Court’s electronic case filing system since that time. With regard to
Document 325-1, the Plaintiff has demonstrated that the exhibit contains
confidential business information, including revenue and customer
information, and that the public’s right of access to such information is
substantially outweighed by the Plaintiff’s competing interest in protecting the
details of such information. See United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 492
(4th Cir. 2018). However, with regard to Document 325-2, the Plaintiff has
not demonstrated that the exhibit contains trade secrets or other private
information, as this exhibit merely contains broad and high-level discussion
of the Plaintiff’s product design, some of which is available in more detail in
other documents on the public docket. Having considered less drastic
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 353 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 3

3
alternatives to sealing the document, the Court concludes that sealing of only
Document 325-1 is necessary to protect the Plaintiff’s privacy interests.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal is partially granted, and
counsel shall be permitted to file Document 325-1 under seal.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal
Exhibits in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
347] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the
Plaintiff’s Document 325-1 shall be filed under seal and shall remain under
seal until further Order of the Court. Document 325-2 shall be filed on the
public docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: April 22, 2024
Case 1:21-cv-00067-MR Document 353 Filed 04/22/24 Page 3 of 3