FORD v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JENNIFER FORD, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
)
1:23cv756 V. )
)
VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM ) CONSULTING, LLC,
) Defendant. )
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' "Motion to Seal" (Docket Entry 68) (the "Motion") . For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Jennifer Ford, Brian Otters, and Eric Beard (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") move to seal Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a consolidated class-action complaint (Docket Entry 77) (the "Amendment Motion") and supporting documents, including: Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint (Docket Entry 77- 1), Plaintiffs' memorandum supporting the Amendment Motion (Docket Entry 78) , and an accompanying deposition transcript (Docket Entry 78-1) .
Although Plaintiffs filed the Motion, Defendant Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC (the "Defendant") asserts confidentiality. (See, e. g., Docket Entry 68 at 2 ("Plaintiffs are not the designating party claiming confidentiality and do not
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 21
)

support [ ] Defendant’s assertions that the materials are
confidential.”).) Those assertions principally concern the	1
purportedly confidential deposition testimony of Defendant’s co-
owner, William Taylor (“Taylor”), and apply to the Amendment Motion
and its supporting documents to the extent those materials quote or
rely on Taylor’s testimony. (See Docket Entry 80 at 1-2.)
More specifically, Defendant “agrees with Plaintiffs’ proposed
redactions [to] the[ Amendment] Motion” (id. at 2; see also Docket
Entry 77, ¶¶ 3-4 (highlighting proposed redactions)), offers
narrowed redactions as to (A) Plaintiffs’ proposed amended
complaint (compare Docket Entry 77-1, with Docket Entry 81-2), (B)
the Amendment Motion’s supporting memorandum (compare Docket Entry
78, with Docket Entry 81-1), and (C) Taylor’s deposition transcript
(compare Docket Entry 78-1, with Docket Entry 81-3), and urges the
Court to grant the Motion “to prevent competitive and financial
harm to [Defendant] and personal harm to its owners” (Docket Entry
80 at 2; see also Docket Entry 81, ¶¶ 6-15)). Plaintiffs oppose
the Motion. (See Docket Entry 89.)2
1 Docket Entry page citations utilize the CM/ECF footer’s
pagination.
2 Plaintiffs later made another filing (see Docket Entry 93
(replying to Defendant’s response to the Amendment Motion)) and
invoked the Motion as an existing basis to file that document under
temporary seal, rather than filing a separate motion to seal
pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, see M.D.N.C. LR 5.4(c)(2)
(requiring motion to seal each time “party seeks to file documents
or portions of documents under seal”). Defendant did not respond.
(continued...)
2
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 21

DISCUSSION
I. Relevant Standards
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to
inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents.” Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The right of
public access to documents or materials filed in a district court
derives from two independent sources: the common law and the First
Amendment.” Virginia Dep’t of State Police v. Washington Post, 386
F.3d 567, 575 (4th Cir. 2004). “While the common law presumption
in favor of access attaches to all ‘judicial records and
documents,’ the First Amendment guarantee of access has been
extended only to particular judicial records and documents.” Stone
v. University of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 180 (4th Cir.
1988) (internal citation omitted) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597).
Under the First Amendment, “access [to judicial records] may be
restricted only if closure is necessitated by a compelling
government interest and the denial of access is narrowly tailored
to serve that interest.” Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 266
(4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). In turn, the
common-law “presumption [of access] can be rebutted only by showing
2(...continued)
(See Docket Entries dated June 20, 2025, to present.) Because the
subsequent filing contains the same purportedly confidential
information as the materials Plaintiffs (then-properly) submitted
with the Motion, the Court’s decision on the Motion also resolves
the sealing status of the subsequent filing.
3
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 21

that countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests
in access.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Under either
standard, “[t]he burden of establishing that a particular document
should be sealed rests on the party promoting the denial of
access.” United States v. Moussaoui, 65 F. App’x 881, 889 (4th
Cir. 2003).3
“Although the Fourth Circuit has yet to clarify whether First
Amendment access rights apply to documents submitted with motions
to amend a pleading,” Rahman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
1:24cv333, 2025 WL 1919344, at *6 (M.D.N.C. July 11, 2025),
“‘district courts in this circuit tend to apply the common law
right of access, rather than the First Amendment right of access,
to motions to amend a pleading and supporting documents,’” id.
(brackets omitted) (quoting Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Lab’ys,
Inc., No. 1:23cv629, 2024 WL 5245586, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 18,
2024). See also id. (collecting cases).
Whether “the public’s [common law] right of access is
outweighed by competing interests” depends on several factors,
“includ[ing] whether the records are sought for improper purposes,
such as promoting public scandals or unfairly gaining a business
3 This legal framework also “applies to requests by a party
to file a redacted document, i.e., a document sealed in part.” Mr.
Dee’s Inc. v. Inmar, Inc., No. 1:19cv141, 2021 WL 3809256, at *2
(M.D.N.C. Aug. 26, 2021). “The interest of the public in the flow
of information is protected by [the Court’s] exercis[e of]
independent judgment concerning redactions.” Moussaoui, 65 F.
App’x at 888.
4
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 21

advantage; whether release would enhance the public’s understanding
of an important historical event; and whether the public has
already had access to the information contained in the
records.” In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir.
1984). To that last factor, the Court cannot seal “information
[that] has already become a matter of public knowledge because
. . ., once announced to the world, the information los[es] its
secret characteristic.” Washington Post, 386 F.3d at 579 (internal
brackets and quotation marks omitted); see also New v. Thermo
Fisher Sci., Inc., No. 1:19cv807, 2021 WL 4593986, at *7 (M.D.N.C.
Oct. 6, 2021) (denying motion to seal as to “information that
appears elsewhere on the public docket or that the parties revealed
at [a public h]earing”).
Moreover, “the right of public access, whether arising under
the First Amendment or the common law, may be abrogated only in
unusual circumstances.” Public Citizen, 749 F.3d at 266 (internal
quotation marks omitted). As the Fourth Circuit has explained,
“public access promotes not only the public’s interest in
monitoring the functioning of the courts but also the integrity of
the judiciary,” as it “serves to promote trustworthiness of the
judicial process . . . and to provide the public with a more
complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better
perception of fairness.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted);
see also id. (“The political branches of government claim
5
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 21

legitimacy by election, judges by reason. Any step that withdraws
an element of the judicial process from public view makes the
ensuing decision look more like a fiat and requires rigorous
justification.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, as
a “[g]eneral[ matter], courts have been hesitant to seal or redact
information that will ‘play a role in the adjudicative process or
adjudicate substantive rights.’” Russe v. United States, No.
1:20cv92, 2022 WL 11965612, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2022) (quoting
In re U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(D), 707
F.3d 283, 290 (4th Cir. 2013)); see also, e.g., Scott v. City of
Durham, No. 1:20cv558, 2022 WL 767557, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 14,
2022) (explaining that, in evaluating sealing request, “the court
also considers whether the public needs access to the materials to
understand a judicial decision”).
“When presented with a request to seal judicial records,” the
Court “must give the public notice of the request to seal and a
reasonable opportunity to challenge the request.” Washington Post,
386 F.3d at 576. Then, “it must consider less drastic alternatives
to sealing.” Id. Finally, “if it decides to seal[,] it must state
the reasons (and specific supporting findings) for its decision and
the reasons for rejecting alternatives to sealing.” Id.
“Adherence to this procedure serves to ensure that the
decision to seal materials will not be made lightly and that it
will be subject to meaningful appellate review.” Id. This
6
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 21

approach also reflects the reality that “[t]he operations of the
courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost
public concern,” Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829,
839 (1978), as well as that “the public’s business is best done in
public,” Cochran v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., LLC, 931 F. Supp. 2d 725,
727 (M.D.N.C. 2013).
II. Analysis
A. Preliminary Matters
The Motion has remained on the public docket since its filing
in May 2025, with no objections filed thereto. (See Docket Entries
dated May 15, 2025, to present.) Thus, the Court deems the initial
procedural step for sealing satisfied, as all interested persons
have received “notice of the request to seal and a reasonable
opportunity to challenge the request,” Washington Post, 386 F.3d at
576.
The record, however, reveals a different procedural problem.
As noted above, Defendant’s request for sealing arises from
Plaintiffs’ use of Taylor’s deposition testimony. (See Docket
Entry 80 at 1-2.) When Plaintiffs filed the Motion, they
represented that they would attach “excerpts from [Taylor’s]
deposition transcript” (Docket Entry 68 at 2 (emphasis added));
yet, Plaintiffs filed (A) a placeholder for the deposition
transcript (see Docket Entry 67-1) and (B) the entirety of the 395-
7
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 21

page deposition transcript under temporary seal (see Docket Entry
78-1).
Aside from ignoring their own, stated course of conduct (see
Docket Entry 68 at 2), Plaintiffs failed to comply with clear
instructions from the Court (per Chief United States District Judge
Catherine C. Eagles) to “proffer[] deposition testimony . . . [by]
sumbit[ting] relevant excerpts” (Docket Entry 29 at 1 (emphasis
added)), along with this Court’s Local Rules, see M.D.N.C. LR
7.1(c) (“Bulky or voluminous materials should not be submitted for
filing . . . unless such materials are essential.”). Therefore,
the Court (per the undersigned) will (A) “order [Docket Entry 78-1]
stricken,” id.; see also Six v. Generations Fed. Credit Union, 891
F.3d 508, 519 (4th Cir. 2018) (noting district courts’ “certain
inherent powers, not conferred by rule or statute, to manage their
own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and (B)
will direct Plaintiffs to provide the Clerk’s Office with a
substitute filing containing excerpts of the transcript — subject
to redactions detailed below — and consisting of the following,
apparently relevant pages: 2, 8, 19-23, 29, 38-42, 45-54, 103-04,
109, 171, 205-08, 228-31, 235-37, 246-51, 253-54, 267-69, 275, 282,
287-88, 293-99, 306-08.4
4 Portions of page 235 (lines 1-11) and page 306 (lines 1-8,
10-11) contain information marked confidential but irrelevant to
(continued...)
8
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 21

B. Defendant’s Sealing Requests
Turning to matters of substance, Defendant seeks the sealing
of “confidential business information” (Docket Entry 80 at
1). “Sealing confidential business records may be appropriate
absent an improper purpose and countervailing interests.” United
Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Techs., Inc., No. 1:25cv368, 2025 WL
3171207, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2025). However, the “bare
contention that [records] . . . constitute sensitive and
confidential business information does not suffice,” Trustees of
Purdue Univ. v. Wolfspeed, Inc., No. 1:21cv840, 2023 WL 2776193, at
*2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 2023) (internal brackets, quotation marks,
and parenthetical omitted); instead, the party maintaining
confidentiality must “provid[e] specific underlying reasons for
[this C]ourt to understand how [Defendant’s interests] . . .
reasonably could be affected by the release of such information,”
Washington Post, 386 F.3d at 579.
In support of its sealing requests, Defendant offers a sworn
declaration (see Docket Entry 81 (the “Declaration”)) from its
chief of staff, who attests to its confidentiality claims (see id.,
¶¶ 1-15). As relevant to the Motion, the Declaration states:	5
4(...continued)
the Motion. As such, this Court’s Local Rules mandate the
redaction of those lines from the compiled excerpts. See M.D.N.C.
LR 5.4(a)(3).
5 Defendant purported to file the Declaration under seal (see
(continued...)
9
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 21

After reviewing [the Amendment Motion] and the
corresponding exhibits, I can confirm that they contain
sensitive, non-public information about [Defendant’s]
business operations.
Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions in the[ Amendment]
Motion . . . cover the confidential information in that
document. However, Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions in
the remaining documents cover both confidential and non-
confidential information. . . .
The information in these documents that [Defendant]
considers confidential consists of: [its] corporate
structure, the percentages of individual ownership
interests in the [c]ompany, the owners’ capital
contributions, [Defendant’s] revenues and profits, and
the earned income of [its] owners.
All of the information in these categories is non-
public, proprietary, and sensitive. [Defendant] keeps it
confidential and discloses it only to persons with a need
to know.
If this information were disclosed to the public, it
would put [Defendant] at a competitive disadvantage —
competitors would have insight into key aspects of [its]
business operations. This is significant because
multiple other companies operate in the space of
assisting veterans through the [U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs] disability claims process.
Over the years, [Defendant] has secured its position
at the forefront of the industry by refining its
processes and policies, its corporate structure and
investments, and its goals for future growth. Public
disclosure of this information would undercut
[Defendant’s] present competitive advantage.
In addition, competitors and others who accuse
[Defendant] of operating illegally might use this
information in an effort to publicly defame [it].
5(...continued)
Docket Entry 81) without arguing why it warrants sealing (see
generally Docket Entry 80). Because none of the information
Defendant seeks to seal appears in the Declaration, the Court will
order the Declaration unsealed.
10
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 21

If [Defendant’s] private financial data were
released, competitors also would be able to track their
financial data against [Defendant’s], without [Defendant]
having the same opportunity to do so in return.
As for information about [Defendant’s] individual
owners, including their ownership percentages and earned
income, [Defendant] has a strong interest in protecting
their personal privacy, safety, and security. Because
[Defendant] is not a public company, it does not disclose
details about ownership percentages and the owners’
earned income. Disclosing that information could subject
the owners to unwanted solicitations, whether financial,
professional, political, or otherwise.
Most troubling is that disclosure could jeopardize
the owners’ safety and security. Nefarious actors
frequently target successful, high-profile individuals
for violent or fraudulent schemes, such as blackmail and
extortion. . . . Additionally, disclosure could put the
owners at risk for [sic] the ever-increasing violence
directed at wealthy corporate leaders . . . . The owners
could also be vulnerable to politically motivated
violence given their political leanings and campaign
contributions.
(Docket Entry 81, ¶¶ 6-15 (paragraph numbering omitted).)
As the Declaration notes, Defendant asks the Court to seal
information pertaining to (i) the earned income of its owners; (ii)
the proportion of their ownership interests; (iii) Defendant’s
revenue and profits; and (iv) the existence of any capital
contributions. (See Docket Entry 81, ¶ 8; see also Docket Entry 80
at 1-2, 4, 8-16.) The Court addresses each category in turn.
1. Earned Income
Defendant contends that “information regarding the earned
income of [its] owners has minimal relevance to Plaintiffs’
proposed amended claims” (Docket Entry 80 at 12) and that its
11
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 21

disclosure would unnecessarily risk its owners’ “privacy, safety,
and security interests” (id. at 13; see also Docket Entry 81,
¶¶ 14-15). Characterizing the figures as “ballpark estimate[s]”
(Docket Entry 89 at 11), Plaintiffs ask the Court to unseal the
information to inform class members of “how much [Defendant’s]
owners made from [the alleged] scheme . . . and how much remains
outstanding” (id. at 12), and because they suspect that the
information might “become relevant [to] the public . . . should
Defendant argue that there are insufficient funds to compensate the
[c]lass” (id. at 11).
Having reviewed the information regarding the earned income of
Defendant’s owners — which appears in each of the documents
pertinent to the Motion — the Court determines that those figures
warrant sealing. The Declaration sufficiently proves the
confidential nature of this information (see Docket Entry 81, ¶¶ 9,
14) and the consequences its release could have on Defendant’s
interest in protecting its owners’ privacy and security (see id.,
¶¶ 13-14), and, as Defendant suggests, the Court can narrowly
tailor the redactions to “the[] specific figures” at issue (Docket
Entry 80 at 12). Moreover, redacting the figures aligns with the
Court’s recent decision (see Docket Entry 154) (per Chief Judge
Eagles) granting a motion to seal as to redactions of Defendant’s
owners’ earned income under the heightened First Amendment standard
(see id. at 4 (“At this stage, there is nothing to indicate that
12
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 21

the amount of money an owner of [Defendant] makes is relevant
. . . .”)).
The Court will deny the Motion, however, as to any
“information that appears elsewhere on the public docket,” New,
2021 WL 4593986, at *7. For example, Plaintiffs’ public allegation
that “Defendant[ and its owners ] made in excess of one[-]hundred
million dollars during the class period” (Docket Entry 66-1, ¶ 1)
requires the Court to unseal that figure as it appears in the
proposed amended complaint (see Docket Entry 77-1, ¶ 1) and the
Amendment Motion’s supporting memorandum (see Docket Entry 78 at
2). Similarly, a public filing containing the allegation that
Defendant’s owners “pa[id] themselves millions of dollars in annual
distributions” (Docket Entry 101 at 41) prevents the Court from
granting Defendant’s requests as to that figure (see Docket Entry
77, ¶ 4; Docket Entry 77-1, ¶¶ 1, 65), regardless of any agreement
between the parties to keep certain information redacted (see
Docket Entry 80 at 2). See M.G.M. ex rel. Mabe v. Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc., No. 1:22cv36, 2022 WL 6170557, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Oct.
7, 2022) (“It is well-established that the parties’ agreement is an
insufficient reason to seal judicial records.”).
2. Ownership Interests
Defendant next requests the sealing of “information about
[its] ownership percentages” (Docket Entry 80 at 11), which, as a
“privately held” company (id.), it does “not disclose[] publicly”
13
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 21

(id.). In opposition, Plaintiffs cite the existence of publicly
available information regarding the fact that Taylor and Scott
Greenblatt (“Greenblatt”) “ha[ve ] ownership interest[s] in the
[c]ompany” (Docket Entry 89 at 6 (emphasis and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The Court will grant the Motion with respect to the ownership
percentages (including references to majority/minority interests)
as those figures appear in Docket Entries 78 and 78-1. That
information raises the same privacy and security concerns mentioned
above and in the Declaration (see Docket Entry 81, ¶¶ 13-14), and
the Court can narrowly tailor the redactions to the percentages and
references to majority/minority interests. The Court cannot,
however, seal basic, publicly available information regarding
Defendant’s ownership and founding (see, e.g., Docket Entry 18 at
8 (disclosing, in Defendant’s own filing, that “Greenblatt and
Taylor created Veterans Guardian”); Docket Entry 87 at 10 (alleging
that Taylor and Greenblatt “own[] differing percentages” as
“[Defendant’s] sole shareholders”); Docket Entry 13 at 2
(disclosing that Taylor and Greenblatt constitute Defendant’s only
members), which Defendant nonetheless seeks to keep under seal (see
Docket Entry 81-1 at 7; Docket Entry 81-2, ¶¶ 47, 51, 55; Docket
Entry 81-3 at 247).
14
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 14 of 21

3. Revenue and Profits
Defendant further seeks to seal information concerning its
revenue and profits to prevent competitive harm. (See Docket Entry
80 at 9, 11-12; Docket Entry 81, ¶¶ 8-13.) Plaintiffs ask the
Court to disregard Defendant’s competitive-harm argument as
conclusory (see Docket Entry 89 at 8-9) and to unseal the
underlying information, which they contend contains either
“approximate profit estimates based on information provided by
Taylor” (id. at 9) or “general statements regarding profit [ ] not
reflect[ing] any figures” (id.) that do not warrant sealing (see
id. at 8-9). Plaintiffs also contend that “sources of Defendant’s
revenue . . . can easily be derived from publicly available
information.” (Id. at 4.)
The Court will grant the Motion as to information related to
Defendant’s revenue and profits appearing in Docket Entries 78 and
78-1. Defendant has sufficiently shown that it keeps this
information confidential (see Docket Entry 81, ¶ 9) and that, if
disclosed, its competitors could use the information to Defendant’s
detriment (see id., ¶¶ 10, 13 (describing competitive landscape and
process by which competitors could analyze Defendant’s revenue and
profits against their own)). Defendant’s interest in preventing
that harm outweighs any interest the public might have in accessing
15
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 15 of 21

the specific figures and information related to its revenue and
profits.6
Once again, the Court limits its granting of the Motion to
information not already publicly available. Any purportedly
confidential profit figures that Plaintiffs “deriv[ed from]
estimat[es] of [publicly available] information” (Docket Entry 89
at 5) do not warrant sealing (see Docket Entry 77-1, ¶¶ 1-2, 63).
Nor can the Court maintain under seal similar information repeated
throughout this case’s public docket. (See, e.g., Docket Entry 1,
¶ 1 (accusing Defendant of “taking tens of millions of dollars [in]
disability benefits”); Docket Entry 52, ¶ 1 (same); Docket Entry
110 at 8 (asserting that “Defendant . . . has unlawfully taken well
over two[-]hundred million dollars[]”).)
4. Capital Contributions
Defendant also asks the Court to seal information related to
“capital contributions” (Docket Entry 80 at 4; accord Docket Entry
81, ¶ 8; Docket Entry 81-3 at 248-49), theorizing that its
competitors could use that information to gain knowledge of
Defendant’s operations (see Docket Entry 81, ¶ 10). As Plaintiffs
correctly note, however, “Defendant does not explain how
[disclosure of] this information alone would harm [Defendant] —
6 Nothing in the Court’s conclusion contradicts its decision
on a separate motion to seal (see Docket Entry 153) (per Chief
Judge Eagles) denying Defendant’s request to seal certain portions
of a document containing financial information neither implicated
nor raised by either party here (see id. at 2-5).
16
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 16 of 21

particularly if precise revenue, profit, [and] earned income
figures are not disclosed.” (Docket Entry 89 at 7-8.) Defendant,
whose Declaration and brief in support of the Motion reference
capital contributions only sparingly (see Docket Entry 81, ¶ 8;
Docket Entry 80 at 4, 9), has not carried its burden of providing
“specific underlying reasons . . . [as to] how [its] interest[s]
reasonably could be affected by the release of such information,”
Trustees of Purdue Univ., 2023 WL 2776193, at *2 (internal brackets
and quotation marks omitted). The Court will therefore deny the
Motion as to information regarding capital contributions.
C. Remaining Matters
Despite insisting that it has submitted “only [ ] limited
portions [of ] highly sensitive” information for sealing (Docket
Entry 80 at 14), Defendant’s confidentiality designations extend
far beyond the above-discussed categories of proprietary
information. For instance, Defendant marks as confidential
information concerning its owners’ alleged personal liability (see
Docket Entry 81-2, ¶ 67), its owners’ lobbying and political
donations (see Docket Entry 81-3 at 45-48, 53), whether its owners
reinvested or took out loans against their income (see Docket Entry
81-1 at 7; Docket Entry 81-3 at 299), whether Defendant paid for
its owners’ vehicles (see Docket Entry 81-1 at 7), and whether
anyone besides Taylor and Greenblatt owned the company (see id.),
all without explaining why any of these items warrants sealing (see
17
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 17 of 21

generally Docket Entries 80 and 81). Moreover, just as the Court
denies Defendant’s unreasoned requests to redact the mere fact of
Taylor and Greenblatt’s ownership (see, e.g., Docket Entry 81-1 at
7; Docket Entry 81-2, ¶ 47), it also denies Defendant’s similar
requests regarding Taylor and Greenblatt’s control over Defendant’s
operations (see Docket Entry 77, ¶ 3; see also Docket Entry 101 at
42 (noting basic fact that Taylor and Greenblatt, as Defendant’s
“CEO and [ ] COO[,] exercise strategic vision for [the] entity,
especially [as] . . . the two only members of [the] LLC”)).
Defendant’s slipshod designations, along with Plaintiffs’
needlessly voluminous exhibit, compel the Court to remind the
parties that it “may impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees,
for filing unsupported or overly broad motions to seal, or for
making unsupported or overly broad confidentiality designations
that are not appropriately narrowed following a request and that
necessitate the filing of a motion to seal by another party,”
M.D.N.C. LR 5.4(a)(4). The parties’ oversights have wasted
judicial and litigant resources, cluttered and complicated the
docket — creating difficulty for the Court, parties, and public —
and contravened this Court’s Local Rules. See, e.g., M.D.N.C. LR
5.4(c)(3) (requiring “a sufficient showing by the party claiming
confidentiality as to why sealing is necessary”); M.D.N.C. LR 5.4
commentary (“As a general rule, parties should keep to a minimum
the filing of sealed documents.”); see also M.D.N.C. LR 5.4(a)(5)
18
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 18 of 21

(“[The Court’s Local Rules regarding filing documents under seal]
are intended to minimize the filing of sealed documents, to protect
the public right of access, to ensure the docket is clear so that
documents can be found easily, and to allow for review of motions
to seal in a way appropriate for the case and that reduces cost,
time, and confusion.”). The parties shall therefore share the
burden of filing all necessary conforming documents. See M.D.N.C.
LR 83.4(a) (authorizing issuance of “such orders as are just under
the circumstances” as sanction for violating Local Rules). In so
doing, the parties shall clearly identify and link each corrected
document to all iterations of that document that appear on the
docket.
To facilitate that endeavor, the Court summarizes its rulings
regarding the various documents that the Motion sought to seal:
Primary Docket
Entry Number Ruling
77 Unseal
77-1 Seal by redaction financial figure on page 2
78 Seal by redaction ownership percentages
(including any majority/minority designations)
on pages 5-6 and financial figures on pages 6-7
19
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 19 of 21

78-1 Replace entire transcript with relevant
excerpts and seal by redaction:
Page 235: lines 1-11
Page 247: lines 11, 13, 19, 21-22
Page 248: line 5
Page 249: lines 14-15
Page 250: line 3
Page 267: line 5
Page 288: lines 2-3
Page 293: lines 4-12
Page 294: lines 1, 4, 7, 9
Page 295: lines 9, 11
Page 296: lines 4, 18
Page 297: lines 11-12, 16
Page 298: lines 2, 6-7, 9, 11-15, 17, 19-20
Page 299: lines 1-2, 4, 9-10
Page 306: lines 1-8, 10-11
Page 307: line 19
Page 308: lines 7-9
81 Unseal
93 Seal by redaction financial figure on page 6
Finally, Defendant seeks “permanent[]” sealing of all affected
materials. (Docket Entry 80 at 16.) However, as this Court (per
Chief Judge Eagles) has explained:
Because confidential business information is typically
dated after a few years, the Court finds that sealing the
information for ten years is sufficient to protect
[Defendant’s] interests. This is subject to further
order of the Court as the case develops and the public’s
interest in particular details increases; the Court will
reevaluate sealing of particular information needed to
resolve a motion, if the case reaches trial, or upon
motion to unseal filed by any litigant or member of the
public.
Put Corp. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 1:22cv881, 2023 WL
3892482, at *3 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 9, 2023).
20
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156 Filed 03/30/26 Page 20 of 21

CONCLUSION
Defendant has justified sealing only certain information filed in support of the Amendment Motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion (Docket Entry 68) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as specified herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before April 13, 2026, the parties shall file public versions of Docket Entries 77-1, 78, 78- 1, and 93 that conform with this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall unseal (i) Docket Entries 77 and 81 upon entry of this Order and (ii), subject to further order of the Court, Docket Entries 77-1, 77-2, 78, 78-1, 81-1, 81-2, 81-3, and 93 on March 30, 2036.
This 30th day of March, 2026.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld L. Patrick Auld United States Magistrate Judge
21
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 156
Filed 03/30/26 Page 21 of 21