UTAH FEDERAL COURT, July 14 – In this
series on sealing in the Federal courts, Inner City Press
has encountered some creative arguments. A German company
told the Northern District of California its filings
should be sealed because Germany doesn't post court
filings online. Now, from the District of Utah, a new
entry: seal it here, because we've asked another court to
seal it there — and that court hasn't said yes.
In Henry Schein One, LLC v. National
Electronic Attachment d/b/a Vyne Dental, 2:25-cv-00883,
before District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen and Magistrate
Judge Jared C. Bennett, plaintiff Henry Schein One moved
on July 10 to file under seal Exhibit A to a declaration.
What is Exhibit A?
Excerpts of the official transcript of an
April 14, 2026 motions hearing held in open court in the
District of Maryland, before Judge Matthew Maddox. What do
the excerpts show? By the movant's own description: that
Henry Schein withdrew a transfer motion. Procedural
history. Not a trade secret in sight — the motion doesn't
even claim one.
The asserted grounds are two, and neither
survives contact with the United States Code, the Tenth
Circuit, or a calendar. First, the Judicial Conference's
ninety-day restriction on remote access to new transcripts
— which is not a seal at all, but a redaction window for
Social Security numbers and the like, during which the
transcript remains a public record, inspectable at the
clerk's office and purchasable from the court reporter.
Better yet: ninety days from April 14 is
July 13. The restriction expired the week the motion was
filed. Henry Schein is asking a federal court to seal a
document on the strength of a limitation that no longer
exists. Second, that sealing "disputes" are "pending" in
Maryland. Pending.
The hearing was held in open court; Judge
Maddox has sealed nothing. As the Supreme Court has put
it, "What transpires in the court room is public
property." A party should not be able to obtain in Utah,
by motion, the secrecy it has not obtained — and may never
obtain — from the court that actually held the hearing.
A seal covering an entire exhibit of
open-court procedural history, for a duration keyed to
another court's someday-maybe ruling, flunks every
element. Whether Judge Allen's court will notice, or will
do what too many courts do with unopposed sealing motions
between well-heeled litigants, and sign, is the test.
This once should not even require a
docketed opposition: the transcript can be purchased from
the court reporter, it is not secret, and it happened in
open court.
In Philadelphia last week, Judge Kearney
denied a blanket sealing motion the day it was challenged.
In Oregon, Judge Baggio denied Nike's eleventh-hour
redactions unprompted, with law and a calendar. Utah's
turn. Cryptically we say, they do not appear to want to
listen. But Inner City Press will report what the
docket shows. Watch this site.
