Biada et al v. Route App, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
KATELYN BIADA, VICTORIA
KORTESMAKI, and ALEJANDRO
MARTINEZ, for themselves and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROUTE APP, INC., and ROUTE
INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Case No. 2:26-cv-00651-HCN-PK
District Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.1 Plaintiffs seek
reconsideration of the Court’s prior order2 permitting Defendants to seal portions of its notice of
removal. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring suit against Defendants, challenging Defendants’ business practices by
asserting that Route conducts an insurance business without authorization to do so. Plaintiffs
filed suit in state court. Defendants removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. Three
requirements must be met for CAFA to confer subject matter jurisdiction on a federal court: “(1)
1 Docket No. 25, filed August 4, 2026.
2 Docket No. 7.
Case 2:26-cv-00651-HCN-PK Document 48 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

2
the putative class meets certain diversity requirements; (2) the putative class is composed of over
100 members; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.”3
Relevant here, the putative class members consist of Defendants’ customers during the
class period and the amount in controversy is the amount these customers paid for Defendants’
services. In their notice of removal, Defendants alleged that they met CAFA’s requirements but
redacted the specific number of customers and the total amount they paid. In their motion to seal,
Defendants explained that “[t]his information is nonpublic and sensitive business information
that the Defendants reasonably and in good faith believe would likely cause harm if disclosed.”4
Based upon this assertion, the Court granted the motion to seal. Plaintiffs now seek
reconsideration of that order.
II. DISCUSSION
“Motions to reconsider are disfavored, to the extent they are recognized at all.”5 “[A]
motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s
position, or the controlling law.”6 Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration is appropriate here
because the Court granted Defendants’ motion prior to receiving a substantive response from
Plaintiffs. The Court agrees that this provides an adequate basis to allow for consideration.
Nonetheless, the Court reaches the same conclusion as its prior ruling.
3 Frederick v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 683 F.3d 1242, 1245 n.1 (10th Cir. 2012).
4 Docket No. 2, at 2.
5 Merrill v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00064-DBB-DAO, 2021 WL 1873961, at *2
(D. Utah May 10, 2021).
6 Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Case 2:26-cv-00651-HCN-PK Document 48 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

3
“In the United States, there is both a constitutional (First Amendment) and common law
right of public access to judicial documents.”7 However, this right is “not absolute.”8 “[T]he
presumption in favor of access to judicial records may be overcome where countervailing
interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.”9 “‘The party seeking to overcome the
presumption’ of public access to [court] documents ‘bears the burden of showing some
significant interest that outweighs the presumption.’”10 Further, the public’s interest in access to
judicial records is lessened when the contents are not “used to determine [the] litigants’
substantive legal rights.”11
“[A] party may overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records by
demonstrating the pages contain ‘sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s
competitive standing.’”12 Thus, documents containing “sensitive, proprietary information
concerning [a party’s] business practices” may properly be sealed.13
The Court finds that Defendants have met their burden to overcome the general
presumption of openness. As Defendants explain,
7 Veleron Holding, B.V. v. Stanley, No. 12 Civ. 5966(CM), 2014 WL 1569610, at *6
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2014); see also United States v. Bacon, 950 F.3d 1286, 1292 (10th Cir. 2020)
(“Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records.”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
8 Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
9 Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
10 Helm v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477
F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)).
11 Colony Ins. Co., 698 F.3d at 1242.
12 Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc., 820 F.3d 1147, 1162 n.8 (10th Cir. 2016)
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
13 Braun v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 719 F. App’x 782, 801 n.8 (10th Cir. 2017).
Case 2:26-cv-00651-HCN-PK Document 48 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

4
[t]he sealed figures here include only Route’s aggregate purchase volume and
associated revenue. Both figures are confidential business information that Route,
as a privately held company, does not disclose publicly. Disclosure would reveal
Route’s market position, business scale, and revenue to competitors and the general
public, causing competitive harm.14
Given this representation, the Court finds that Defendants have met their burden. This is
especially true where Plaintiffs have the underlying information and the public’s interest in
access is minimal. Plaintiffs’ argument for unsealing generally go to the merits of their claims,
which remain undecided. Therefore, the figures will remain under seal. However, this
determination may be revisited if the figures are later used to determine the parties’ substantive
legal rights.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to for Reconsideration (Docket No. 25) is DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of October, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
PAUL KOHLER
United States District Judge
14 Docket No. 38, at 6.
Case 2:26-cv-00651-HCN-PK Document 48 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4