Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In a lawsuit between Cognizant Trizetto Software Group, Inc. and Infosys Limited, Infosys filed a motion to dismiss. In connection with that motion, Infosys asked the court for permission to file six of its supporting exhibits under seal. Infosys argued that the documents, which included nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and related correspondence, were designated “confidential” by Cognizant during discovery.
Infosys contended that the confidentiality provisions within the NDAs themselves obligated it to seek sealing. The documents in question contained information about some of Cognizant’s clients. However, Cognizant, the party whose confidential information was purportedly at stake, did not file a response to the motion or otherwise advocate for sealing the documents.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Brantley Starr denied the motion, refusing to allow the documents to be filed under seal. The court emphasized that the public’s right to access judicial records is a fundamental element of the rule of law, and that judges must serve as representatives of the people in scrutinizing any request for secrecy. The standard to seal a judicial record is “much more demanding” than the standard for a protective order during discovery.
After conducting a “document-by-document, line-by-line balancing” of the competing interests, the court found nothing in the exhibits that was commercially sensitive, confidential, or a trade secret. The court noted that the NDAs contained “very typical” terms and that “defining the categories of confidential information is not in itself confidential.” While some of Cognizant’s clients were named, Infosys failed to provide any argument or evidence that the client list was a trade secret, and Cognizant’s silence on the matter left the court with no reason to override the strong presumption of public access. The court ordered the Clerk to file the documents on the public record.
Key Takeaways
- The public has a fundamental First Amendment right to access judicial records, and courts must rigorously scrutinize any request to seal documents.
- Simply marking a document “confidential” during discovery is not enough to justify sealing it on the court’s public docket.
- A party moving to seal documents must provide specific, line-by-line proof that the interest in nondisclosure outweighs the public’s right of access; boilerplate contract terms or general categories of information are typically not sufficient.
- The court may act as a guardian of the public’s right to access, even when the parties to the case do not object to sealing.
Why It Matters
This opinion is a forceful statement on the importance of transparency in the federal courts. It serves as a critical reminder to litigants and their attorneys that the default is openness, and that attempts to shield court filings from public view face a high bar. The ruling makes clear that parties cannot rely on discovery-stage confidentiality agreements or boilerplate NDA language to hide documents filed in support of dispositive motions. The court will independently review the materials to determine if they contain genuine trade secrets or other sensitive information sufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of public access.