IDT Corp et al v. eBay, Inc. et al
ORDER granting 25 Motion to Unseal Document. The parties are directed to file the redacted version of the complaint within seven days of this order. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 19, 2014. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
IDT CORP. and
CASE NO. 10-CV-4097
EBAY, INC.; SKYPE, INC.; and
SKYPE TECHNOLOGIES, S.A.
Before the Court is a Motion to Unseal Complaint filed by eBay, Inc.; Skype, Inc.; and
Skype Technologies, S.A.1 ECF No. 25. Skype and eBay move the Court to unseal a redacted
version of the antitrust complaint filed in this matter. No response to the motion has been filed, and
the time for response has passed. The Court finds that this matter is ripe for consideration.
In 2006, Net2Phone, Inc. sued Skype and eBay for patent infringement in the District of New
Jersey. In 2008, eBay sued IDT Corp. and Net2Phone, along with other parties, for patent
infringement in the Western District of Arkansas. The parties litigated both cases pursuant to
protective orders that governed the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information. In 2010,
IDT filed the antitrust complaint at issue in this litigation. The Court allowed IDT to file the
complaint under seal. Three weeks later, the parties reached a settlement in all cases. The antitrust
lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
Months later, the Arkansas Public Law Center (“APLC”) intervened in this matter to unseal
the antitrust complaint. After an in camera review of the complaint, the Court denied the motion
In this order, Skype, Inc. and Skype Technologies, S.A. are collectively referred to as “Skype.”
to unseal, finding that “the potential harm that unsealing the complaint may cause to Plaintiffs and
Defendant outweighs the APLC’s generalized interest in access to the complaint.” ECF No. 18.
The APLC appealed the denial of its motion, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the Court’s order
denying the motion to unseal the complaint. ECF No. 24. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the
Court “did not abuse its discretion in determining that the potential harm in unsealing ‘confidential
and competitively sensitive information’ outweighs APLC’s ‘generalized interest in access to the
complaint.’” ECF No. 24, attachment 1. However, the Eighth Circuit found that there was “not a
sufficient explanation from the district court for us to evaluate whether redaction was a reasonable
alternative to sealing the entire complaint.” ECF No. 24, attachment 1. The Eighth Circuit
remanded the case for the Court to assess whether redaction of confidential business information is
practicable and instructed the Court to either “unseal a redacted complaint or deny the motion to
unseal with an explanation why the entire complaint should remain under seal.” ECF No. 24,
After the case was remanded back to the Court, eBay and Skype filed the present motion to
request unsealing of a redacted version of the complaint previously filed under seal. ECF No. 25.
The Court has conducted another in camera review of the sealed complaint. Although many portions
of the complaint contain sensitive and confidential business information intertwined with otherwise
non-confidential information, the Court concludes that the redaction of such information is
practicable. Further, the Court has reviewed the proposed redacted complaint offered by eBay and
Skype and determines that the suggested redactions are both necessary and proper. The redacted
material in the complaint is derived from sensitive and confidential information protected by the
protective orders entered in the New Jersey and Arkansas patent cases. Accordingly, the Motion to
Unseal Complaint (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The parties are directed to file the redacted version
of the complaint within seven days of this order.2
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
The original order denying the APLC’s Motion to Unseal Complaint (ECF No. 13) was vacated by the Eighth Circuit.
ECF No. 24. Thus, the Court reconsiders the APLC’s Motion to Unseal Complaint in which the APLC moves the Court
to unseal the complaint in its entirety. The Court finds that the APLC’s Motion to Unseal Complaint should be and
hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for reasons set forth in this order. The Court does not unseal
the complaint in its entirety but orders a redacted version of the complaint to be filed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?