Deflorio v. Target Corp.

Background

Plaintiff Harmony Deflorio filed suit against Defendant Target Corp. in the District of Minnesota. The immediate dispute arose from documents filed in connection with Deflorio's Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 157), which the court denied on the record at a hearing on April 27, 2026. Specifically, several exhibits (ECF Nos. 162, 162-1, 162-2, 162-3, 162-4, 167, 169, and 171) and a memorandum (ECF No. 164) were filed under seal. The parties then jointly moved (ECF No. 184) for continued sealing of these documents.

Legal Standard Applied

The court applied the common-law right of public access to judicial records, as recognized by the Eighth Circuit in IDT Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220 (8th Cir. 2013). That right is not absolute. The court must weigh the degree to which sealing interferes with public access against the interests served by confidentiality. The strength of the presumption of public access — and thus the burden a party must meet to overcome it — depends on how central the documents are to the court's exercise of judicial power (i.e., to deciding the actual merits of the case):

- If documents played a material role in the exercise of Article III judicial power (such as in deciding a dispositive motion), a party must show compelling reasons to keep them sealed. - If documents played no material role in the exercise of judicial power, the presumption of public access is weaker and amounts to a prediction that documents will be public absent any countervailing reason — meaning a countervailing reason suffices.

Analysis

The Sealed Exhibits

The court found that the sealed exhibits did not play a material role in any dispositive motion or in the court's exercise of Article III power (judicial authority). Accordingly, the lower standard applied: the parties needed only a countervailing reason. The court reviewed each document and found that they contained confidential business information, private individually identifiable contact information, or sensitive medical information — providing sufficient countervailing reasons.

The Memorandum

Although the memorandum (ECF No. 164) also played no role in the exercise of Article III power, the court stated it scrutinizes sealing of legal briefs more carefully, because restricting public access to legal argument — even on non-dispositive issues — can impede the development of the law. However, the court found this concern minimized because Target Corp. publicly filed a version of the memorandum with only minimal redactions (ECF No. 165). After reviewing the memorandum, the court found continued sealing appropriate given its contents.

Rejection of 'Confidential Designation' Argument

The parties argued in part that certain documents should remain sealed because they were "designated as confidential" during discovery. The court explicitly rejected this rationale, noting that a discovery confidentiality designation is not dispositive of whether a document should be sealed in the public court docket, which is presumptively open to the public.

Ultimate Finding

Based on its independent review of each document, the court found that the parties' legitimate confidentiality interests — in protecting confidential business information, private contact information, and sensitive medical information — constitute compelling reasons for sealing (and, at minimum, adequate countervailing reasons), which outweigh any public interest in access.

Important Limitation

The court included a footnote clarifying that this ruling has no intended preclusive effect on how the assigned District Judge might handle the same documents if they become relevant to any dispositive motions or at trial. The ruling applies only to continued sealing at this stage of the proceedings.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing (ECF No. 184) and directed the Clerk of Court to keep the documents filed at ECF Nos. 162, 162-1, 162-2, 162-3, 162-4, 164, 167, 169, and 171 under seal.