Facts
- A consumer filed a putative nationwide class action alleging that Trump University used misrepresentations and high-pressure sales tactics to sell expensive real-estate seminars and programs.
- During motion practice, internal Trump University “playbooks” and related operational manuals (including sales scripts and “upsell” tactics) were filed in connection with class-certification proceedings.
- A magistrate judge permitted the playbooks to be filed under seal, accepting the argument that they constituted trade secrets in their entirety.
- A news organization moved to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the sealing and sought public access to the playbooks and related filings.
- The defendant opposed unsealing, asserting the materials contained proprietary, competitively sensitive information warranting continued sealing.
Issues
- Whether a nonparty news organization may intervene for the limited purpose of seeking access to sealed judicial records.
- Whether materials submitted with a class-certification motion are subject to a strong presumption of public access under the common law and/or the First Amendment.
- What standard governs sealing for those materials (compelling reasons versus good cause), and whether the defendant met that burden.
- Whether asserted trade-secret and confidentiality interests justified sealing the playbooks in whole or only supported limited, targeted redactions.
Decision
- The court granted the news organization’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the sealing of court records.
- The court held that the playbooks and related materials filed with the class-certification motion were more than tangentially related to the merits and therefore subject to a strong presumption of public access.
- Applying the “compelling reasons” standard, the court ordered most of the playbooks and associated filings unsealed.
- The court rejected blanket sealing based on a generalized claim that the playbooks, taken as a whole, were trade secrets.
- The court permitted only narrowly tailored redactions for specific portions shown to qualify as confidential commercial information or trade secrets.
Legal Principles
- Nonparties, including media entities, may intervene to challenge sealing orders and seek access to judicial records.
- Records submitted in connection with motions more than tangentially related to the merits (including class-certification motions) trigger a strong presumption of public access.
- To seal such records, the proponent must show compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings; conclusory assertions of competitive harm are insufficient.
- Trade-secret protection may justify limited redactions, but sealing must be narrowly tailored to genuinely confidential, competitively sensitive content rather than imposed categorically on entire documents.
Conclusion
The court permitted limited media intervention and substantially unsealed class-certification record materials, holding that generalized trade-secret assertions could not overcome the presumption of public access and allowing only specific, narrowly tailored redactions for proven confidential business information.