Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Lessin, Carol Smalley, and the other named plaintiffs brought a class action against Ford Motor Company alleging latent defects in Ford F-250 and F-350 trucks across four generations covering model years 2005 through 2019. Those defect allegations remain allegations; this order does not resolve them. The court previously granted class certification in part and denied it in part on November 7, 2024. Ford appealed that ruling, and after remand the parties completed supplemental briefing on class certification.
The three sealing motions resolved here concern materials submitted with that supplemental briefing, not the merits of the defect claims or the pending certification question. Ford moved on July 24, 2026 to seal five lines of the deposition of Ford employee Dr. Michael Frankstein, PhD, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Mark I. Richards in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief in Support of Class Certification (Doc. No. 251-4). Plaintiffs moved on July 17, 2026 to provisionally seal the unredacted version of that same Exhibit 2 pending Defendant's response and the Court's determination of whether Defendant's basis for sealing was warranted. On September 25, 2026, Plaintiffs separately moved to provisionally file under seal an unredacted version of their Supplemental Reply in Support of Class Certification and Exhibits 2, 3, 5, and 7-10 thereto, pending Ford's response and the Court's ruling on the adequacy of Ford's asserted grounds for sealing. Ford, as the designating party, filed a response supporting Plaintiffs' motion but narrowing the sealing request to portions of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Reply, portions of Exhibits 2 and 5, and the entirety of Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Mark Richards (ECF No. 264-1).
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the compelling-reasons standard because the materials related to class-certification briefing. It explained that judicial records carry a strong presumption of public access and that sealing requires compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, not hypothesis or conjecture, that outweigh that presumption. Recognized grounds include preventing disclosure of trade secrets or business information that could damage a litigant's competitive standing.
On Document 255, the court granted Ford's motion as to page 30, lines 13 through 17, of Document 251-4. It found the five-line request narrowly tailored and Ford's explanation sufficient: the testimony concerned a proprietary feature of a risk-assessment model whose disclosure could help competitors reverse engineer the model or reproduce its methodology without comparable development costs. Plaintiffs were directed to refile Document 251-4 publicly with only those authorized redactions.
The court denied Plaintiffs' Document 252 motion without prejudice because they did not make a particularized, evidence-supported showing of compelling reasons for provisionally sealing Exhibit 2; the Ford-approved redactions nevertheless remained protected. On Document 262, the court granted sealing only in accordance with Ford's narrowed proposal, finding sufficient explanations of competitive harm from disclosure of design, development, testing, root-cause analysis, potential vehicle-system failures, and corrective measures. It denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to provisionally seal Ex. Nos. 3, 7-9 of Document Number 264-1. Plaintiffs were ordered to remove unapproved redactions from the supplemental reply and Exhibits 2 and 5, refile those materials publicly with authorized redactions, remove the seal cover slips, and publicly file Exhibits 3, 7, 8, and 9. Any renewed motion to file under seal information for which sealing was denied in the instant Order was due no later than November 13, 2026, and if neither party timely filed a renewed motion, Plaintiffs were required to refile a public version of each document with the appropriate redactions authorized by this Order no later than November 20, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The compelling-reasons standard governed because the sealing requests concerned filings supporting or opposing class certification.
- Ford justified sealing five deposition lines by identifying a proprietary risk-assessment feature and a concrete risk of competitive harm.
- Plaintiffs' Document 252 request failed because it lacked a particularized factual showing, not because the court rejected public-access principles.
- On Document 262, the court accepted Ford's narrower sealing proposal for specified engineering and root-cause materials while requiring Exhibits 3 and 7 through 9 to become public.
- Any renewed sealing motion was due by November 13, 2026; absent a timely renewed motion, compliant public versions were due by November 20, 2026.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the document-by-document and portion-by-portion scrutiny required when parties seek to keep class-certification materials secret. A confidentiality designation or provisional sealing motion is not enough: the proponent must identify specific information, explain the competitive injury with factual support, and limit the request accordingly. Ford's narrower showing succeeded where plaintiffs' broader showing did not.
The decision preserves an opportunity to renew the denied requests without prejudice, but imposes a demanding deadline and requires a compelling reason for each piece of information. It does not decide class certification after remand, the alleged truck defects, or liability; its disposition concerns public access and the required redactions and refiling.