Sweeney et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RYAN SWEENEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE CO., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
Case No. 2:20-cv-1569
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
ORDER
On December 22, 2025, the Court issued its Opinion and Order resolving the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and motions to exclude expert
testimony. (December 22 Opinion, ECF No. 266.) Therein, the Court ordered the
parties to submit an agreed redacted version of the December 22 Opinion for filing
on the public docket. (Id.) Upon review of their submission, the Court ordered the
parties to show cause why each of the proposed redactions satisfied the standard set
out in Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir.
2016). (ECF No. 267.) The matter is now before the Court on the parties’ Response
to the Order to Show Cause, which the Court construes as a Motion to Seal. (Mot.,
ECF No. 268.)
The Sixth Circuit and other courts “have long recognized . . . a ‘strong
presumption in favor of openness’ as to court records.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305
(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 710 F.2d 1165,
1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). The “heavy” burden of overcoming the presumption of
openness is borne by the proponent of sealing the record. Id. (citations omitted).
Case: 2:20-cv-01569-SDM-CMV Doc #: 270 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Indeed, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” Id. (quoting In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir.
1983)). And even still, a seal must be “narrowly tailored to serve” such compelling
reasons. Id.
Here, Nationwide seeks to seal portions of the December 22 Opinion
discussing:
the Annuity Contract’s contract margin and other financial elements,
the process for calculating the Annuity Contract’s crediting rate, the
operation of the Additional Interest Reserve and its role in that process,
the yields on investments used to support the crediting rate, and
comparisons of the Guaranteed Fund’s crediting rate and contract
margin to other products in the market and offered by Nationwide Life.
(Mot., PAGEID # 25539.) It argues that this information is competitively sensitive
and of minimal public interest. As to the specific amount of the contract margin and
the specific calculation of the Crediting Rate, the Court agrees. See Shane Grp. at
307 (noting that “specificity is essential” in advocating to seal judicial records),
308 (explaining that “trade secrets” can be protected from disclosure). But
Nationwide fails to explain how or why the December 22 Opinion’s general
discussion of the Additional Interest Reserve would work harm.
The Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The proposed
redactions are resolved as follows:
Proposed Redaction Subject Disposition
4:14 Contract margin amount Granted
5:8–9 Crediting rate formula Granted in part
5:16–17 AIR Denied
5:10–21 AIR Denied
6:1 AIR Denied
6:3–4 AIR Denied
7:16 Portfolio yield in 2008 Denied
Case: 2:20-cv-01569-SDM-CMV Doc #: 270 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
7:17 Contract margin in 2008 Denied
7:18 Contract margin in 2008 Denied
10:21–22 Crediting rate formula; Contract
margin amount
Granted in part
21:9 Contract margin amount Granted
21:10–12 Contract margin amount Granted in part
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison
SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 2:20-cv-01569-SDM-CMV Doc #: 270 Filed: 01/30/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>