PCiRoads v. David E. Collins
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-04389
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In PCiRoads, LLC v. David E. Collins, Magistrate Judge Foster granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint motion on court record sealing, ordering that most of Exhibit B be made public but keeping a single page containing disputed pricing information sealed for now until the court can decide whether that information qualifies as a trade secret.
Parties to this specific litigation — PCiRoads, LLC (plaintiff, a heavy civil construction company) and David E. Collins (defendant, a former employee or contractor). Potentially relevant to other litigants seeking to seal documents containing alleged trade secret pricing information in federal court in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In PCiRoads, LLC v. David E. Collins (Case No. 25-cv-4389), PCiRoads, a Minnesota heavy civil construction company, sued former employee David E. Collins after he allegedly shared a confidential pricing quote with a third party without authorization. When Collins removed the case from Minnesota state court to federal court in November 2025, the parties temporarily sealed a document called Exhibit B while they worked out their disagreement about whether it should remain sealed.
The parties ultimately agreed that most of Exhibit B did not need to stay sealed, but they disagreed about the last page — 'Page 31' — which is a copy of a May 2025 pricing quote Collins prepared on behalf of PCiRoads. PCiRoads argued the page contains confidential trade secret pricing information whose public release would hurt its ability to compete in the industry. Collins argued the pricing information is neither confidential nor a trade secret and should be made public.
Magistrate Judge Foster ruled that, at this early stage of the case, the need to keep Page 31 sealed outweighs the public's right to access it. The judge reasoned that whether Page 31 contains a trade secret is central to PCiRoads's legal claims and that deciding that question now would be premature. The court granted the sealing without prejudice — meaning either party may later ask the court to unseal Page 31 once the trade secret question is resolved on the merits. PCiRoads was directed to file a publicly available version of Exhibit B with only Page 31 redacted.
The detailed version
Case: PCiRoads, LLC v. David E. Collins, No. 25-cv-4389 (PJS/DJF), United States District Court, District of Minnesota. Ruling issued November 26, 2025, by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster.
Background
Defendant David E. Collins removed this case from Minnesota state court on November 19, 2025. To facilitate removal, Collins agreed to temporarily file Exhibit B to PCiRoads's Complaint under seal while reserving the right to object to continued sealing. Exhibit B is a document attached to PCiRoads's Complaint; the parties disputed whether its last page, 'Page 31,' should remain sealed. Page 31 is described as a copy of a May 29, 2025, pricing quote that Collins prepared on behalf of PCiRoads and allegedly disclosed to a third party without PCiRoads's knowledge or approval.
The Sealing Dispute
After the court ordered supplemental memoranda, the parties agreed the majority of Exhibit B does not warrant continued sealing. PCiRoads argued Page 31 should remain sealed because it contains confidential pricing information constituting a trade secret, and that public disclosure would undermine its competitiveness. Collins argued the pricing information is neither confidential nor a trade secret and therefore does not warrant sealing.
Legal Standard
The court applied the principle that there is a public right of access to judicial records, but that right can be outweighed by competing interests. The court cited Cake Love Co. v. Ameripride Servs, LLC, No. 22-cv-1301 (PJS/ECW), 2023 WL 5277009 (D. Minn. June 22, 2023), which in turn cited IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1224 (8th Cir. 2013).
Ruling
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. It found that, at this early stage of litigation, the interest in keeping Page 31 sealed outweighs the public's right of access. The court reasoned that whether Page 31 contains trade secrets is central to several of PCiRoads's claims and that resolving that issue prematurely would be inappropriate. Sealing was granted without prejudice — meaning either party may file a motion to unseal Page 31 after the merits question of whether the information constitutes a trade secret is resolved.
Orders
(1) The joint motion is granted in part and denied in part; (2) PCiRoads is directed to file a publicly available redacted version of Exhibit B with Page 31 redacted; (3) The Clerk of Court is directed to keep the sealed version of Exhibit B under seal.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.