The longest-running title in this my blog’s history appears for the eighth (count ’em, eighth) time in fourteen (count ’em, fourteen) years, as Judge Travis A. (“Tag”) Greaves so admonishes trusty attorneys for nonparty P in Amgen Inc. & Subsidiaries, Docket No. 16017-21, filed 6/27/25.

Last month P’s trusty attorneys sought to seal a bunch stuff (hi, Judge Holmes) which Judge Tag Greaves denied. Trusty Attorneys sought leave, but failed to lodge the document they wanted to file if leave was granted. I didn’t blog this, as it seemed a routine attorney miscue.

Two weeks ago “P filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Order and lodged the Motion for Reconsideration. Neither the motion for leave nor the motion for reconsideration set forth the specific portions of testimony P seeks to seal nor corresponding justifications. Instead, P argues that we failed to consider whether its confidential business information was sufficient justification to warrant sealing the testimony. P alleges that failing to seal the unidentified portions of testimony will cause irreparable harm to P.” Order, at p. 3. (Name omitted).

Judge Tag Greaves disputes trusty attorneys’ assertion that courts routinely seal stuff.

“Contrary to P’s claim that courts ‘routinely and regularly’ seal this confidential business information, courts impose a high bar on those that seek to limit public disclosure and do not often grant such requests.” Order, at p. 4.

The public have the right to know what’s going on in the courts. P’s trusty attorneys pled only that this was important stuff, but didn’t say what specifically was important, nor how it was important, nor how disclosure would irremediably injure P. That doesn’t get it.

But trusty attorneys will get another chance.

“Because of the defects in P’s motion limiting our review and the importance of protecting confidential business information when warranted, we will grant P’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Order… and file the lodged Motion for Reconsideration of Order as of the date of this Order. However, P’s Motion for Reconsideration remains deficient. The declaration setting forth the specific requests to seal and justification has been stricken from the record. Therefore, we again can only consider P’s arguments in the abstract. We will order P to supplement its motion for reconsideration with the specific requests to seal sought, including any redactions also sought by Amgen, and corresponding justification for the redaction. We note that the previously filed declaration only generally alleges harm without a concrete basis for each request. We expect P to specifically justify why sealing each portion of the transcript… is warranted, particularly considering that the information P seeks to seal is squarely at issue before this Court. We also expect P to specifically set forth why its interests in sealing these portions of the transcript are not adequately protected by Amgen’s aligned interests.” Order, at p. 5. (Citation omitted).

Takeaways: Note the primacy of business information as against personal information when sealing is on the menu. Note also whether the parties can adequately protect the nonparty’s interests without the nonparty’s intervention. Finally, note when essential issues must be resolved, the public and the appellate courts need to know on what bases the trial court’s resolution rests, so sealing is even harder to get.

So be specific.