ECOLAB, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY RIDLEY, et al., Defendants Case No. 1:22-cv-050-TRM-SKL United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Southern Division Filed July 13, 2023 Lee, Susan K., United States Magistrate Judge MEMORANDUM AND ORDER *1 Before the Court are Defendant ChemTreat, Inc.'s Consolidated Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 272; Doc. 275 & Doc. 278 (proposed sealed documents)] and Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 289; Doc. 290 (proposed sealed documents)] addressing numerous proposed sealed documents attached as exhibits to various pending motions. Plaintiffs Ecolab, Inc., and Nalco Company, LLC, filed responses [Doc. 284 & Doc. 310], and ChemTreat filed a reply and a supplemental brief as to the Consolidated Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 291 & Doc. 294]. The parties also filed supplemental charts as ordered by the Court [Doc. 307 (Order), Doc. 311 (Plaintiffs), & Doc. 325 (ChemTreat)]. The motions are now ripe. I. BACKGROUND As the Court previously noted, the proposed sealed documents[1] were apparently identified in discovery as confidential or “attorney eyes only” by Plaintiffs. ChemTreat indicates it only filed the motions due to Plaintiffs' refusal to permit ChemTreat to file the documents unsealed in support of the pending motions. ChemTreat's general position is the documents do not “satisfy the high bar for sealing records.” [Doc. 272 at Page ID #6814]. In their responses, Plaintiffs propose filing some of the documents with redactions (as opposed to filing the entire document under seal), but they do not retreat from their position that some entire documents and at least portions of other documents contain confidential business information and trade secrets that should only be filed under seal. On June 23, 2023, the Court entered an Order requiring Plaintiffs to provide evidentiary support for this assertion as well as a chart listing the proposed sealed/redacted documents to assist the Court in addressing the instant motions [Doc. 307]. Plaintiffs timely filed a sworn declaration from Corey DeMarco, an Ecolab/Nalco Vice President [Doc. 311-2], and the required chart [Doc. 311-1]. The Court has previously addressed the applicable legal standards for filing documents or information under seal [see Doc. 6, Doc. 67, Doc. 133, Doc. 138; see also Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016)]. Those well-known standards, which strongly favor public access to court filings, need not be repeated in their entirety. It suffices to note that Plaintiffs bear a “heavy” burden of demonstrating: “(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.” See Kondash v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 767 F. App'x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019). “[T]he existence of a trade secret will generally satisfy a party's burden of showing a compelling reason for sealing documents.” Kondash, 767 F. App'x at 638. In addition, “courts have refused to permit their files to serve as ... sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). *2 Plaintiffs' position is: [A]s to the limited number of documents that Plaintiffs seek to file under seal in their entirety or with redactions, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the documents contain[ ] trade secrets and highly sensitive business information and that the public's interest in transparent court proceedings will not be negatively impacted by granting Plaintiffs' request to retain the documents at issue under seal. [Doc. 311 at Page ID # 11825]. As mentioned, Plaintiffs provided DeMarco's declaration [Doc. 311-2] in support of these contentions. Before addressing individual proposed sealed documents/redactions, DeMarco provides context about the information Plaintiffs seek to file under seal and about Plaintiffs' industry: 3. Plaintiffs, among other things, are engaged in the highly competitive business of monitoring and controlling performance of industrial water treatment systems for clients in a wide range of industries including, but not limited to, food preparation, pulp and paper, agriculture, manufacturing, refining, mining, power production, healthcare, pharmaceutical, and high-tech businesses. 4. Plaintiffs provide a broad spectrum of products and services to businesses throughout the United States. To that end, Plaintiffs partner with customers across a wide range of industries and develop solutions for such customers' specific water needs and business goals. 5. Plaintiffs have developed business templates, customer files, customer proposals, selling strategies and techniques, and other highly confidential and proprietary trade secret information based on, among other things: years of developing relationships with customers, building extensive knowledge regarding each customer; years of experience treating our customers' systems; and years of training our representatives to provide excellent value and service for our customers. In fact, Plaintiffs have an extensive, world-class training program for its employees. Plaintiffs' employees rely on this training as well as the use of Plaintiffs' existing forms and templates to further collect information regarding prospective and actual customers, develop sales and service strategies, and provide status reports to customers. Using this training, our employees collect and create the type of incredibly valuable information that Ridley uploaded and downloaded before leaving our company. 6. The information described above could have substantial competitive value to Plaintiffs' competitors, who could use the training materials, templates, proposal forms, and format of client presentations Plaintiffs' developed over years and in many cases at significant expense and use that information to compete with Plaintiffs. 7. Plaintiffs take substantial steps to protect its proprietary and confidential information, including use of employment agreements protecting confidential information, password-protected computer systems, and other measures. [Doc. 311-2 at Page ID # 11845-47][2]. II. ANALYSIS a. Preliminary Issues *3 There are several preliminary issues. First, the question currently before the Court is not whether Plaintiffs have established the existence of a trade secret as to any of the proposed sealed documents/information. Plaintiffs' claims largely survived Defendants' motions to dismiss [see Doc. 69], and at this stage of the litigation, it appears there may be some trade secrets and other confidential business information at issue. The Court must still consider whether public interest outweighs Plaintiffs' interest in protecting their information and whether Plaintiffs' requests are narrowly tailored. Kondash, 767 F. App'x at 638. There is not perfect overlap between the proposed sealed documents at issue in the instant motions to seal and the documents containing the alleged trade secrets/confidential information that Defendants allegedly misappropriated. But there does appear to be some overlap, and a motion to seal is not the proper vehicle for addressing potentially claim dispositive issues. Thus, the Court will not address arguments concerning whether the documents/information were subject to confidentiality agreements or were otherwise protected from disclosure by Plaintiffs [see Doc. 291 at Page ID # 8944]. Second, Plaintiffs keep moving the goal posts. According to ChemTreat, in the Court-ordered pre-motion conferral, Plaintiffs “instructed ChemTreat to file the documents ... provisionally under seal.” [Doc. 272 at Page ID # 6817; see also Doc. 246 at Page ID # 4923-24]. In their response [Doc. 284] to the motion, Plaintiffs proposed that a number of the documents be filed publicly with redactions, rather than sealing all of the documents in their entirety. Now, in their response [Doc. 311] to the Court's June 23 Order, Plaintiffs concede that at least a few of the documents should not be sealed or redacted but rather can be filed publicly in an unredacted form. The process of whittling down the proposed sealed documents/redactions to those truly at issue should have been addressed by the parties in the pre-motion conferral process. The Court nevertheless finds sanctions against Plaintiffs are not warranted in connection with the instant motions [see Doc. 246 at Page ID # 4924[3]]. Third, the Court addresses the proposed sealed documents/redactions in the numbered order used by ChemTreat in its chart filed at Doc. 325-1. Plaintiffs use the same sequential order in their chart [Doc. 311-1], just without numbering the documents. In addition, some of the entries include a document and then a separate subdocument for the metadata (i.e., Joint Exhibit 25 and Joint Exhibit 25a). The Court's holdings as to the document apply to the metadata. That is, if the document is ordered sealed, the metadata should also be sealed. b. Proposed Sealed or Redacted Documents 1. Three-page attachment to March 2, 2021 email from Ridley to ChemTreat with “business plan that [Ridley] prepared.” -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion to seal[4] is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs have filed this document elsewhere on the docket and presented it during a public hearing. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs' request to refile sealed or redacted versions of such previously disclosed documents, but the document has been publicly available on the Internet for nearly a month, and it is part of the public record of a court hearing that took place over four months ago. See S.R.X. v. Fleming, No. 3:20-CV-126-CHB-CHL, 2020 WL 12991127, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2020) (denying request to file under seal documents that “are already contained within the publicly available copy of the state court record filed by the BSA”). The Court specifically raised the issue at the hearing, such that Plaintiffs have been on notice. *4 In addition, DeMarco's sworn declaration indicates the business plan was developed using a spreadsheet prepared over time by one of Plaintiffs' employees, and further that the spreadsheet contains formulas used to make business projections [¶ 10]. However, the business plan document does not reflect the spreadsheet, the formulas, or the data Ridley inputted to create the business plan. 2. Offer Letter from Plaintiffs to Tyler Bates -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored as they relate only to salary offers. This information could easily inform competitors' salary and job offers, in what DeMarco describes as a “highly competitive industry” [¶ 11]. 3. Plaintiffs' template for Program Administration Manual -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 12]. 4. Site-specific service plan developed for customer of Plaintiffs -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons set forth in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 13]. That is, while it dates from 2004, it sets forth a detailed service plan for a particular customer and would be valuable to a competitor seeking to pitch similar services. 5. Plaintiffs' internal PowerPoint presentation used to educate personnel on best practices for dealing with closed loop systems -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration. ChemTreat complains the document is “stale” [Doc. 291 at Page ID # 8944]. While DeMarco does not explicitly address the age of the document in his sworn declaration, he nevertheless makes clear that the document remains relevant and valuable information for Plaintiffs' business and operations [¶ 14]. 6. Personal service report prepared for customer of Plaintiffs -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 15]. ChemTreat points out a number of times the customer to whom the report is addressed is identified on the public record, but ChemTreat does not allege that the other information Plaintiffs seek to redact from this document is revealed at any point on the public docket. This other information is technical and detailed and could certainly be valuable to competitors seeking to “poach” this customer. In addition, while the customer may have been identified elsewhere as part of lists of file names, search terms, or exemplar customers, it does not appear the public record reveals the fact that Plaintiffs have prepared this particular service report for this customer, or what types of information are generally included in a “personal service report.” 7. Summary of a proposed agreement between Plaintiffs and customer -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 16]. ChemTreat also complains this document is stale, but again, DeMarco makes clear the information remains relevant. Moreover, similar to item number 6, while the customer may be identified on the public record, it does not appear that any disclosure has been made of the particular scope/terms of any agreements between Plaintiffs and this customer. 8. Billing Agreement and Scope of Work document prepared by Plaintiffs for customer -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 17]. As with other item number 6 and item number 7, ChemTreat's complaints of staleness and public disclosure of the identity of the customer (but not the other detailed and technical information) are not persuasive as applied to this particular document and Plaintiffs' proposed redactions.[5] *5 9. Expense report -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary. 10. Quote for Plaintiffs' sales price for equipment to customer -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 19]. That is, the document reflects pricing information which competitors potentially could use to undercut Plaintiffs and gain an unfair advantage. 11. Plaintiffs' PowerPoint containing key information regarding sales strategy for particular product -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form. The slides and information reflect sales strategies that could give competitors an unfair advantage, as DeMarco describes [¶ 20]. The Court disagrees with ChemTreat's characterization of the “personal story or anecdote” as “wholly anodyne.” [Doc. 291 at Page ID # 8944]. It is clearly a particular sales strategy. 12. Scorecard used in conjunction with training Plaintiffs' sales personnel -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to the proposed redaction, which addresses the following question: “Does Rep recognize Key Business Drivers & Initiatives and use them to support actions[?]” Although a small redaction—only a “single bit of information,” as DeMarco puts it—the question does not reveal anything substantive [¶ 21]. It is simply a general sales training question. DeMarco states the question refers to a metric “where the description refers to some proprietary offerings of Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs consider highly proprietary.” [Id.]. But even DeMarco appears to admit the question only reveals confidential information when read “in combination with the other training materials.” [Id.]. If the alleged proprietary information is in the other training materials, those materials can perhaps be sealed or redacted, but Plaintiffs have not met their burden for redacting the question on the scorecard. 13. Technical notes associated with customer service visit -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 22], as it contains information regarding the issues facing a particular customer and the services Plaintiffs provided to correct the issues. 14. PowerPoint presentation prepared for meeting with customer -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 23]. That is, the document does more than identify the customer. It addresses specific work projects Plaintiffs have done for the customer and the purported return on investment of the projects. In addition, the Court agrees it is proper to redact the names of employees who are not at all involved in this litigation.[6] 15. Template for proposal for services for use with prospective clients -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 24]. The proposed redactions are extremely narrowly drawn to only exclude payment terms, the types of insurance Plaintiffs maintain for their customers, and projected cost savings. *6 16. Template for proposed remote service plan for use with actual and prospective customers -REDACTED. The motion is granted as to this document in its redacted form for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 25]. Plaintiffs request redaction of information regarding their automation services. While the information is not specific to a particular customer, nor is it overly detailed, the Court will permit the redaction in light of DeMarco's representations. 17. Expert report of Dana M. Trexler, Plaintiffs' damages expert -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 26]. That is, it includes such information as “customer attrition rates, customer retention rates, and detailed information on the per-customer sales and gross margin for a three-year period.” [Id.]. 18. Expert report of Dana M. Trexler, Plaintiffs' damages expert -SEALED. According to ChemTreat, this is the same report as item number 17, except item number 18 “redacts the company lists in Exhibits 1.4.0 and 2.4.0.” [Doc. 325-1 at Page ID # 12465]. It is not clear to the Court why this information was redacted from the already sealed filing [see Doc. 275-3]. Regardless, the Court will permit the document to be filed under seal. In addition, the Court will permit the two exhibits to Trexler's report identified in item numbers 21 and 22, below, to be filed under seal for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 26, ¶ 27]. These are also exhibits 5 and 6 to ChemTreat's Motion to Exclude Trade Secrets Damages Opinions of Dana M. Trexler [Doc. 266]. The documents reflect specific and detailed sales information recorded on a quarterly basis. 19. Data Loss Prevention Report generated by Plaintiffs[7] -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document, which is a lengthy list of file names of documents Ridley alleged downloaded. Plaintiffs concede they have filed complete versions of the information reflected in this document in at least two other places in the record. The information has been publicly available at least since April 23, 2023 [Doc. 225-6]. ChemTreat points out partial lists of the files are included in other filings as well. Indeed, the Court previously addressed Plaintiffs' disclosure of such partial lists months ago, holding the Court would not seal such information at least in part because Plaintiffs had previously disclosed it [see Doc. 138]. DeMarco states that the document “lists thousands of file names that provide information on Plaintiffs' customers and prospective customers, services provided for those customers, and other confidential business information.” [¶ 29]. He continues: “In short, this is Plaintiffs' customer list, and Plaintiffs treat this information as highly confidential; the potential value to a competitor of knowing who Plaintiffs provide services to and at what locations is without measure.” [Id.]. True, the file names reveal the identity of Plaintiffs' customers, in some instances the location of the relevant facility (e.g., “chattanooga facility”), the type of document/service (e.g., “quote for paint shop air houses biocide feed”). However, the general types of work Plaintiffs perform for their customers are no mystery, especially to competitors in the industry. The file names do not reveal information like amounts charged or quoted, whether the customer was facing a problem, any particular business strategy for addressing the problem, or other similar information. *7 Accordingly, the Court will not permit this document to be filed under seal. 20. Expert Rebuttal Report of Douglas Ellis -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document for the reasons stated in DeMarco's sworn declaration [¶ 26]. That is, Ellis's expert report is “derived from the information contained in” Trexler's report, and should be filed under seal for the same reasons as item numbers 17 and 18, above. 21. Exhibit to Expert Report of Dana M. Trexler (customer-specific financial information) -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document as set forth in the discussion of item numbers 17 and 18, above. 22. Exhibit to Expert Report of Dana M. Trexler (customer-specific financial information) -SEALED. The motion is granted as to this document as set forth in the discussion of item numbers 17 and 18, above. 23. Excerpt from Deposition of Karry Mackie -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary.[8] 24. Expert Report of Laurence D. Lieb[9] -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs have filed the document in the public record, unredacted, at least five different times. ChemTreat has also filed the document in the public record, unredacted at least twice. The document appears to have been publicly available at least since April 12, 2023 [Doc. 210-3]. The proposed redactions consist of customer names contained within file names; Lieb lists these file names in his report when describing the results of his forensic investigation. For example, he states that his forensic analysis revealed Ridley downloaded a file named “notes for maytag 2006 contract.doc” to a personal Microsoft account on May 24, 2021. Plaintiffs propose redacting customer names from the approximately ten file names revealed in Lieb's report. Plaintiffs rely on paragraph 29 of DeMarco's sworn declaration to support the redactions. But paragraph 29 does not discuss Lieb's report. It discusses an “export of the data loss prevention report” and an “audit log,” each of which apparently reveals thousands of file names. As discussed above, the Court will not permit the “Data Loss Prevention Report generated by Plaintiffs,” addressed at number 19 above, to be filed under seal. Moreover, based on the parties' filings, it appears that all of these documents—the Data Loss Prevention Report, the “export of the data loss prevention report,” and the “audit log”—reveal the same information, that is, file names which reveal customer identities and some very basic information about quotes or services Plaintiffs have provided to those customers. 25. Plaintiffs' IT Procedure for Data Security Incident[10] -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary. *8 26. Data Loss Prevention Report generated by Plaintiffs -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. This document appears to be identical to item 19. As such, the motion is denied as to this document for the same reasons as those addressed above. 27. Office 365 Audit Log -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary. In addition, it appears to be the same document as the “audit log,” discussed above and in paragraph 29 of DeMarco's sworn declaration. 28. Plaintiffs' IT Procedure for Data Security Incident -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary. 29. Plaintiffs' IT Procedure for Data Security Incident -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary. 30. Excerpt of Customer Business Plan -NOT SEALED OR REDACTED. The motion is denied as to this document. Plaintiffs agree sealing/redaction is not necessary. As to all documents ordered sealed or redacted herein, to the extent not already addressed, the Court finds Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to justify provisionally shielding the information from public disclosure. In addition, the Court finds Plaintiffs' requested redactions are narrowly drawn, and Plaintiffs have sufficiently explained why other documents are not amenable to redacting but rather must be filed entirely under seal. ChemTreat's Consolidated Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 272] will be granted (in part) as to these documents. For all other proposed sealed documents/redactions, the Court finds Plaintiffs have not met their burden for the reasons stated herein. ChemTreat's Consolidated Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 272] will be denied (in part) as to these documents. Further, ChemTreat's Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 289], which pertains to only one document, will be denied, as Plaintiffs now agree the document does not require sealing or redaction [see Doc. 311-1 at Page ID # 11842]. The rulings made herein regarding sealing/redactions apply only to the documents filed in conjunction with the currently pending motions. These rulings do not impact how the documents will be treated in any hearings on the motions, any future filings, or the trial of this case. Finally, as discussed above, no final determinations have been made as to whether any of the information ordered sealed herein constitutes a trade secret or confidential business information. At the conclusion of this litigation, if a determination is made that any such information does not so qualify, the parties may file a motion to revisit whether it is appropriate for the information to remain under seal. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated and to the extent set forth above, ChemTreat's Consolidated Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 272] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. ChemTreat's Motion to File Under Seal [Doc. 289] is DENIED. Specifically, the following documents may be filed under seal (documents 3, 5, 7, 17, 18, 20, 21 & 22); filed redacted (documents 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 & 16); and filed but not under seal or with redactions (documents 1, 9, 12, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 & 30). *9 The fact that the motions to seal are granted as to certain documents within the Joint Appendix and denied as to other documents within the Joint Appendix (and Joint Appendix Addendum) creates some issues with the Court's CM/ECF system. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to re-file an unsealed version of the Joint Appendix and Joint Appendix Addendum which include unsealed versions of the documents numbered herein as 1 (JE-7); 9 (JE-31); 12 (JE-34); and 30 (JE-306) in addition to all of the other documents originally included in the unsealed Joint Appendix and Joint Appendix Addendum. This publicly-filed Joint Appendix/Joint Appendix Addendum SHALL also include the redacted versions of the documents ordered redacted herein, that is 2 (JE-21); 4 (JE-26); 6 (JE-28); 8 (JE-30); 10 (JE-32); 11 (JE-33); 13 (JE-35); 14 (JE-36); 15 (JE-38); and 16 (JE-39), with the redactions proposed by Plaintiffs in Doc. 284-2.[11] In addition, the parties are ORDERED to re-file, under seal, the documents from the Joint Appendix that are herein ordered sealed [3 (JE-25); 5 (JE-27); 7 (JE-29); and 17 (JE-302)) or redacted [2 (JE-21); 4 (JE-26); 6 (JE-28); 8 (JE-30); 10 (JE-32); 11 (JE-33); 13 (JE-35); 14 (JE-36); 15 (JE-38); and 16 (JE-39)]. The parties SHALL use the event code for filing proposed sealed documents. Each sealed or redacted document must be properly labeled and filed as a separate attachment to a single filing. In this filing, the redactions SHALL be highlighted in such a way that the highlighted information is visible and legible to the Court [see Doc. 6 at Page ID # 81].[12] For any documents NOT in the Joint Appendix or Joint Appendix Addendum, the typical procedures apply. That is, the Clerk will retrieve any documents ordered sealed and re-docket them as sealed [18 (Doc. 275-3); 20 (Doc. 275-4); 21 (Doc. 275-5); and 22 (Doc. 275-6)]. And, for any documents NOT in the Joint Appendix or Joint Appendix Addendum that are NOT ordered sealed [19 (manually filed per Doc. 270 & Doc. 275); 23 (Doc. 275-7); 24 (Doc. 275-8); 25 (Doc. 275-9); 26 (manually filed per Doc. 270 & Doc. 275); 27 (manually filed per Doc. 270 & Doc. 275); 28 (Doc. 275-2); and 29 (Doc. 278)], the Clerk will delete the docket entry to note the document was deleted upon the denial of the motion to seal. The parties will then be required to re-file the document on the public docket for the document to be considered in connection with the relevant motion or response. All documents SHALL be re-filed within SEVEN DAYS of entry of this Order. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] As used herein, “sealed” also means redacted. The Court will specify if a document is to be filed redacted as opposed to sealed in its entirety. [2] Hereafter, the Court cites only the relevant paragraph number of DeMarco's sworn declaration. [3] “If a party designating the document(s) as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY EYES ONLY refuses, or timely fails, to give consent to file a document unsealed within the 48 HOURS and then does not present a valid, good faith argument supported by applicable citation to authority for sealing in response to the resulting motion to seal, the party will be sanctioned for wasting the resources of the filing party and the Court.” [4] The holdings for item numbers 1 through 29 pertain to ChemTreat's Consolidated Motion to File Under Seal at Docket no. 272. The holding for item number 30 pertains to ChemTreat's Motion to Seal at Docket no. 289. In addition, the Court notes that the motion at Docket no. 289 relates only to one document—an excerpt of a customer business plan, identified as Joint Exhibit 306 (and its metadata Joint Exhibit 306a). Joint Exhibits 307, 308, 309, 210, and 311 are also included in Docket No. 290 as “proposed sealed documents” relating to Docket No. 289. However, as far as the Court can tell, the motion to seal at Docket no. 289 relates only to Joint Exhibit 306 (and 306a). [5] ChemTreat's arguments regarding staleness and past public disclosure of customer identities apply to a number of the proposed redacted/sealed documents. The Court does not necessarily explain its rejection of these arguments each time they are raised, but the reasoning is the same. That is, DeMarco's sworn declaration implies that all of the documents addressed in these two motions remain relevant. And the Court finds there is a difference between identifying a customer as part of a list of search terms/customers/file names and disclosing the contents of a particular type of report or agreement prepared for that customer. As such, the Court generally permits Plaintiffs to redact the identity of any customer reflected in documents like item numbers 6, 7, and 8. [6] The Court acknowledges the expense report at item number 9 also identifies employees seemingly not involved in this case; however, Plaintiffs have agreed to allow that document to be filed publicly [Doc. 311-1 at Page ID # 11833]. [7] The Court understands this to be the document, stored on the manually-filed thumb drive, titled, “FILES EXFILTRATED BY ANTHONY RIDLEY 01252023.” [see Doc. 275 at Page ID # 6893; see also Doc. 270]. [8] In their chart, Plaintiffs identify the Mackie deposition excerpt as Exhibit 4 to ChemTreat's Motion to Exclude Trade Secrets Damages Opinions of Dana M. Trexler [see Doc. 311-1 at Page ID # 11839]. However, it appears to be exhibit 9 to the Trexler motion [see Doc. 325-1 at Page ID # 12468; Doc. 266 at Page ID # 6655]. [9] The Court refers here to the report only [Doc. 275-8], not the exhibits. [10] Item Numbers 25, 28, and 29 all appear to be the same document. [11] The Court will leave it to the parties to decide who will re-file the Joint Appendix and Joint Appendix Addendum in accordance with this Order. If filed by ChemTreat, Plaintiffs SHALL provide ChemTreat with electronic copies of the documents with the allowed redactions. [12] Similarly, if ChemTreat re-files the sealed Joint Appendix, Plaintiffs SHALL provide ChemTreat with electronic copies of the documents with the required highlights.