Upjohn Co. v. Freeman

Texas Court of Appeals, Dallas · Torts

TortsSealing court recordsRule 76aTrade secretsTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 76acourt recordsunfiled discoverypublic health or safety

Facts

The Freemans sued Upjohn for negligence and products liability arising from injuries allegedly caused by Halcion. In discovery, the Freemans sought numerous unfiled technical documents concerning Halcion, and Upjohn moved to seal them under Rule 76a. After a second Rule 76a hearing on remand, the trial court found the documents were court records because they concerned matters having a probable adverse effect on public health or safety, but it sealed only the portions containing Upjohn's protocols in testing and analyzing Halcion as trade secrets. Upjohn argued the remaining documents should also be sealed, while the Freemans argued none should be sealed.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding the unfiled discovery documents were court records under Rule 76a and by refusing to seal all documents except the protocol materials. The cross-issues were whether the trial court erred in sealing the protocol documents and whether collateral estoppel or mootness barred Upjohn's position.

Rule

Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a, court records are presumed open to the public. If a party disputes whether unfiled discovery constitutes court records, the party claiming openness must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that specific documents or categories of documents are discovery concerning matters that have a probable adverse effect on general public health or safety; once that showing is made, the party seeking sealing must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) a specific, serious, and substantial interest clearly outweighing the presumption of openness and any probable adverse effect on public health or safety, and (2) that no less restrictive means than sealing will adequately protect that interest. A properly proven trade secret interest may satisfy the required specific, serious, and substantial interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a products-liability suit in Dallas, Carla Mendez seeks unfiled discovery from Red Mesa Therapeutics about an arthritis drug. Red Mesa moves to seal the material, and a consumer watchdog contests whether the documents are court records; the watchdog offers testimony identifying categories of documents as adverse-event analyses, clinical-study summaries, and regulator submissions relating to the drug's safety in the general population.

Who bears the burden of proving that the disputed unfiled discovery qualifies as court records under Rule 76a, and by what standard?

Explanation. When court-record status is disputed, the trial court may not presume the documents are court records. The party claiming openness must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the specific documents or categories of unfiled discovery concern matters having a probable adverse effect on general public health or safety. The rule requires a document-specific or category-specific showing, not a general inference from the nature of the lawsuit. (Derived from Upjohn Co. v. Freeman (n.d.).)