Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Ronald Penman and Adelante )
Oil & Gas, LLC, on behalf of ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
themselves and a Class of ) LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
similarly situated royalty owners, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 1:22-cv-097
)
Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________ )
)
Sandy River Resources, LLC and )
Sandy River Energy, LLC, on behalf )
of themselves and classes similarly )
situated royalty owners, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:22-cv-108
)
vs. )
)
Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, )
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendant Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC’s (“Hess”) motion for leave
to file under seal filed on March 9, 2026. See Doc. No. 144. Hess seeks to file its response to the
Plaintiffs Sandy River Energy, LLC, Sandy River Resources, LLC’s motion for class certification
along with a number of exhibits and deposition transcripts under seal with redacted versions for
public consumption. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.
It is well-established that there is a common-law presumption of public access to judicial
records. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The presumption is based
on the need for the federal courts to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have
Case 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH Document 146 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 4

confidence in the administration of justice.” United States v. Gray, 59 F.4th 329, 333 (8th Cir.
2023). This right of access is not absolute, but requires a weighing of competing interests. The
decision to file a document under seal is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See
Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). A party
seeking to seal a judicial record must demonstrate a compelling interest which overrides the qualified
First Amendment right of public access enjoyed by the public and press. United States v. McDougal,
103 F.3d 651, 658 (8th Cir. 1996). A court deciding to seal a document must explain why sealing
was necessary and why less restrictive alternatives were not appropriate. See In re Search Warrant
for Secretarial Area Outside Office of Gunn, 855 F.2d 569, 574 (8th Cir. 1988); In re Sealed
Documents, Standing Order (D.N.D. Sept. 30, 2011).
Generally, a qualified right of access attaches to dispositive documents and materials filed
in conjunction with dispositive motions. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1245 (11th Cir.
2007); Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[D]ispositive
documents in any litigation enter the public record notwithstanding any earlier agreement. How else
are observers to know what the suit is about or assess the judges’ disposition of it?”); Webster
Groves, 898 F.2d at 1376 (“Where the common-law right of access is implicated, the court must
consider the degree to which sealing a judicial record would interfere with the interests served by
the common-law right of access and balance that interference against the salutary interests served
by maintaining confidentiality of the information sought to be sealed.”). Appellate records are
presumptively public. Baxter, 297 F.3d at 545.
The Eighth Circuit has stated that “only the most compelling reasons can justify
non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal
2
Case 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH Document 146 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 4

quotation marks omitted). “[E]ven where a party can show a compelling reason why certain
documents or portions thereof should be sealed, the seal itself must be narrowly tailored to serve that
reason.” Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016)
(citing Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 464 U.S. 501, 509-11 (1984)). Therefore, the party
seeking sealing must ‘analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing
reasons and legal citations.” Baxter, 297 F.3d at 548.
The Court has previously expressed its concerns with sealing filings. See Doc. Nos. 116 and
133. Hess proposes a number of redactions in order to protect information it perceives as personally
and commercially sensitive. Redaction is preferred to the sealing of an entire document. Hess
correctly points out that the current motion for class certification is not dispositive and personally
identifying information ought to be redacted. However, commercially sensitive information which
underpins a judicial decision must be open to public inspection. Baxter, 297 F.3d at 545; FA ND
Chev, LLC v. Kupper, No. 1:20-CV-00138, 2023 WL 4459605, at *4 (D.N.D. July 11, 2023)
(refusing to seal commercially sensitive documents).
With these principles in mind, the Court has carefully reviewed Hess’s proposed redactions.
The proposed redactions are limited, reasonable, and narrowly tailored so as to keep only the most
sensitive information from public view. The personally sensitive information that has been redacted
is irrelevant to the pending motion. The commercially sensitive information which has been
redacted has been kept to a reasonable minimum. The Court approves of the proposed redactions.
3
Case 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH Document 146 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 4

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. No. 144) is GRANTED. The
Memorandum and Exhibits listed in Doc. No. 144 may be filed under seal provided redacted
versions are filed for public consumption.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH Document 146 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 4