the materials to be held in confidence. However, the parties cannot by agreement overcome the public’s right of access to judicial records. See In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2011); Sensormatic Sec. Corp. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 455 F.Supp.2d 399, 437-438 (D.Md.2006). Instead, the parties must show significant countervailing interests that outweigh the public’s interest in openness. In re Application, 707 F.3d at 292-93. Volvo next contends that the materials at issue contain confidential business information. This would appear to be a sufficient basis in some instances, if it is established and not outweighed by countervailing interests. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306; see also Pittston Co. v. United States, 368 F.3d 385, 406 (4th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Volvo notes that the materials at issue were
holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to unseal documents containing confidential and proprietary business information holding that it was an abuse of discretion to refuse to award attorneys fees where each element of five part test has been satisfied holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony