The moving party sought a sealing order over court materials on the basis of consent and solicitor-client privilege arising from ongoing litigation.
The court held that consent alone cannot displace the presumptive openness of court records and that a sealing order requires evidence establishing privilege, necessity, and a narrowly tailored restriction.
Because the record contained no supporting evidence and the proposed order sought to seal all materials filed by the parties, the motion failed to satisfy the governing framework.
The motion was dismissed.
