Judge Andrews Denies in Part Defendants’ Motion to Redact Hearing Transcript
March 1, 2016
Publication| Intellectual Property
In M2M Solutions LLC v. Motorola Solutions Inc., C.A. No. 12-33-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 2, 2016), Judge Andrews denied in part defendants Telit Communications PLC and Telit Wireless Solutions Inc.’s (“Telit”) motion to redact the transcript of a hearing, permitting redactions only to those sections of the transcript discussing a third-party license agreement, profits, and royalties, as well as the entirety of the index. Judge Andrews was not convinced that the disclosure of other material (such as broad sales and pricing information) would cause a well-defined and serious injury to Telit, and he partially denied the motion to redact accordingly.
The Court regarded agreement among the parties to designate information as confidential or highly confidential as irrelevant to determining whether to redact a judicial transcript. According to Judge Andrews, although there is “not much public interest” regarding information exchanged during discovery, “it is in the public interest to be able to understand the proceedings before a judge” once such information is disclosed during a judicial proceeding.
Analysis: Hearings and conferences with judicial officers are presumptively open to the public. If parties expect to discuss confidential information, they should alert the judge at the start of the proceedings to explore whether an accommodation can be reached.