Richards Layton & Finger
 

Judge Andrews Denies in Part Parties' Request to Redact a Hearing Transcript

June 8, 2016

In Delaware Display Group LLC v. Lenovo Holding Company Inc., C.A. No. 13-2108-RGA (D. Del. May 10, 2016), Judge Andrews granted in part the parties’ motion to redact a discovery conference transcript, but denied the proposal to redact certain pages where the parties did not show a “clearly defined and serious injury” that would arise from public disclosure of those pages. In support of their unopposed motion to redact the transcript, the parties submitted two declarations outlining four general categories of information that should be redacted as well as two specific portions of the transcript that should be redacted. Judge Andrews noted at the outset that a designation of information as “restricted - attorneys’ eyes only” is not determinative of the issue of whether the transcript from a judicial hearing should be redacted. Judge Andrews stated that, while there is little public interest in information exchanged during discovery, information contained in a transcript of a court hearing is different in that it “is in the public interest to be able to understand the proceedings before a judge.” Judge Andrew found that, while information such as pricing terms in license agreements and trade secrets are appropriate items to be redacted, “[t]hings that typically weigh against the necessity of sealing include that the information is old, or general, or already in the public record, and was relevant to the judicial proceeding.”

Analysis: Judge Andrews continues to scrupulously review requests to redact even when unopposed or jointly requested, and parties considering redactions should be aware that they must show “clearly defined and serious injury” to prevent public dissemination.