FA ND Chev, LLC et al v. Kupper et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
FA ND CHEV, LLC and FA ND SUB, LLC, )
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
) 	FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Robert Kupper; Bismarck Motor Company; ) 	AND FOR THE FILING OF THE
and BMC Marine LLC d/b/a Moritz Sport 	) 	UNREDACTED OCTOBER 7, 2025,
& Marine, 	) 	HEARING TRANSCRIPT
)
Defendants. 	)
___________________________________ )
)
BAPTKO, Inc., 	)
)
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, 	)
)
v. 	)
)
Foundation Automotive Corp., an Alberta 	) 	Case No.: 1:20-cv-00138
Corporation; FA ND CHEV, LLC; and 	)
FA ND SUB, LLC, 	)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. 	)
On October 7, 2025, the parties convened for an in-person hearing to discuss BAPTKO
Inc., and Robert Kupper’s (collectively “BAPTKO”) Motion to Compel Discovery and for
Sanctions and for Expedited Decision (Doc. No. 552), and to discuss all remaining pending
motions filed by the parties. (See Doc. No. 605). At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered
the parties to submit post-hearing briefs. (Doc. No. 625).
Pursuant to the court’s order, the parties filed their post-hearing briefs, albeit with
redactions, and requested leave to file under seal the unredacted post-hearing briefs, responses,
and replies. (Doc. Nos. 632, 634, 637, 639). The parties were also ordered to submit any proposed
redactions of the hearing transcript to the court for its review by October 20, 2025. (Doc. No. 629).
Case 1:20-cv-00138-DMT-CRH Document 640 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
BAPTKO informed the court that there were no requested redactions for the hearing transcript,
while FA ND CHEV, LLC, FA ND SUB, LLC, and Foundation Automotive Corp. (collectively
“the Foundation Parties”) provided the court with proposed redactions that were intended to protect
propriety and confidential commercial information. In response, BAPKTO submitted objections
to the proposed redactions.
On October 23, 2025, BAPTKO filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Post-Hearing
Brief (Doc. No. 632) an unredacted post-hearing brief, and an exhibit with portions designated as
“Confidential” by the Foundation Parties. Notably, BAPTKO advised that it had no alternative but
to request leave to file under seal due to the designation of information pertaining to the purchase
price of the Mandan Dealerships by the Foundation Parties, banking information, and other
financial information as “Confidential.” The same day, the Foundation Parties filed a Motion for
Leave to File Under Seal Unredacted Post-Hearing Brief. (Doc. No. 634). Therein, the Foundation
Parties requested the court permit it to file the unredacted post-hearing brief under seal as public
disclosure of the redacted material would “risk significant harm to the Foundation Parties’ business
relationships, creditor negotiations, and competitive standing.” The Foundation Parties further
argued that the redacted version of the brief would preserve public access to the legal arguments,
procedural context, and core factual background without disclosing the confidential financial and
commercial information. On November 3, 2025, BAPTKO filed a Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal Post-Hearing Reply Brief. (Doc. No. 637). BAPTKO advised that the post-hearing reply brief
and included exhibits contained information the Foundation Parties asserted was confidential. The
same day, the Foundation Parties filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Unredacted Post-
Hearing Response Brief. (Doc. No. 639). Therein, the Foundation Parties again asserted public
disclosure off the redacted information could result in significant harm.
Case 1:20-cv-00138-DMT-CRH Document 640 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
As previously noted by this court on numerous occasions, the public has a common-law
right of access to judicial records. (See Doc. No. 62); see also Nixon v. Warner Communications,
Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Only the most compelling of reasons may justify the non-disclosure
of judicial records, and even where there is a compelling reason why documents should be sealed,
the seal must be narrowly tailored. In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006); Shane Group
Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the party
requesting the seal is required to “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of
secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Baxter Int’l Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 297 F.3d 544, 548
(7th Cir. 2002).
This is a situation where BAPTKO has requested leave to file under seal due to the terms
of the parties’ Amended Protective Order and based on information designated as confidential by
the Foundation Parties. The Foundation Parties assert the information should be filed under seal
as the public dissemination of the information could risk significant harm to its business
relationships, creditor negotiations, and competitive standing. The court has reviewed the parties’
unredacted post-hearing briefs and corresponding exhibits and attachments and does not find there
is a compelling reason for the documents to be filed under seal. While the court is cognizant of the
fact the Foundation Parties have asserted their redacted post-hearing brief is narrowly tailored to
reflect confidential financial and commercial information, the court remains unconvinced that
beyond the parties’ identification of the documents as confidential, there is not sufficient
justification for the proposed sealed documents to be kept under seal.
Much of the information the parties have requested be filed under seal, or unsealed with
redactions was referenced in open court at the time of the October 7, 2025, hearing. Moreover,
upon reviewing the redacted documents and proposed redactions to the hearing transcript, it
Case 1:20-cv-00138-DMT-CRH Document 640 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
appears to the court that a layperson would be able to ascertain much of the information the parties’
have proposed be sealed. Notably, much of the redacted portions that appear unredacted in the
proposed sealed post-hearing briefs are one-to-two-word statements or dollar figures, many of
which were discussed openly at the October 7, hearing.
Turning to the October 7, 2025, hearing transcript, the court finds no justification to redact
or keep under seal portions of the transcript or the entire transcript itself. The October 7 hearing
was an open hearing, meaning anyone from the public had the opportunity to sit in and listen to
what was discussed at the time of the hearing. There was no request from either party to have a
closed hearing, and a closed hearing did not occur. Accordingly, any information the parties may
be attempting to keep from public disclosure already could have been publicly disseminated based
on the fact it was discussed in open court, and members of the public may have had the opportunity
to sit in and observe.
For the reasons articulated above, the parties’ various motions for leave to filed under seal
are DENIED. (See Doc. Nos. 632, 634, 637, 639). The court further ORDERS that the October
7, 2025, hearing transcript be filed unsealed, with no redactions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:20-cv-00138-DMT-CRH Document 640 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 4