Civil practice – Impoundment

Listen to this article

Where impoundment has been requested, that request should be denied because the parties have not identified any trade secrets or other highly sensitive information that may properly be withheld from the public file.

“Capital Artists, LLC, owns a minority of the preferred stock issued by Active Protective Technologies, Inc., which borrowed money from Asahi Karei Holdings US, Inc. Capital Artists brings this action derivatively on behalf of Active Protective. It claims that Asahi Karei: (1) breached its Note Purchase Agreement by failing to provide the full amount of funding that it promised to pay to Active Protective; (2) is charging Active Protective a usurious interest rate in violation of Massachusetts law; and (3) knowingly participated in breaches of fiduciary duty by several directors of Active Protective.

“Capital Artists has moved to impound its original, portions of its amended complaint, and the agreements with Asahi Karei that are attached as exhibits to those pleadings. Asahi Karei and Active Protective have joined in the requests for impoundment.

“The Court will deny the motion because the parties have not met their burden of proving that there is any good cause to impound this material. …

“The mere fact that both parties and the nominal defendant in this case seek or support impoundment is not sufficient grounds for preventing the public from reviewing the complaints and exhibits in their entirety. …

“The parties have not identified any trade secrets or other highly sensitive information that may properly be withheld from the public file for this civil action. …

“In sum, after careful review of the materials that the parties seek to have impounded, the Court finds that the parties have not met their burden of showing that there is good cause to impound these materials and exclude them from the public case file. …

“Plaintiff’s motion to impound portions of its Amended Complaint and all of the attached exhibits (docket no. 12) is denied. Plaintiff’s motion to impound its original Complaint and the attached exhibits (docket no. 2) is also denied.”

Capital Artists, LLC v. Asahi Karei Holdings US, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-009-26) (4 pages) (Salinger, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Docket No. 2584CV01973-BLS2) (Jan. 7, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.