Harkey v. General Electric Company

Filing 258

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 164 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 178 Motion to Seal; denying 180 Motion to Preclude; granting in part and denying in part 181 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 183 Motion to Preclude; granting in part and denying in part 184 Motion to Seal; denying 186 Motion to Preclude; granting in part and denying in part 187 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 208 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 209 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 210 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 211 Motion to Seal; granting 219 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 3/7/17. (Gould, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GLEN GRAYSON and DOREEN
MAZZANTI, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:

3:13cv1799 (WWE)
:
:
:
:
:
:

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS TO SEAL AND TO PRECLUDE
This action is a putative class action on behalf of consumers who purchased
defendant General Electric Company’s (“GE”) microwave ovens with an alleged design
defect that caused the glass doors to shatter.
Defendant moves to have this Court seal certain information in exhibits,
memoranda, expert reports and depositions. Defendant also moves to preclude expert
testimony and reports of Thomas Read, Abraham Wyner and Colin Weir pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579 (1993).
Upon review, the Court will grant the motions to seal in part, and it will deny the
motions to seal in part. The motion to preclude Read’s expert testimony and report will
be denied; the motion to preclude Wyner’s expert testimony and report will be denied in
part, denied in part without prejudice, and granted in part; and the motion to preclude
1

Weir’s expert testimony and report will be denied without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Upon a showing of compelling circumstances, the court may order certain
records to be sealed. See Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir.1982). Judicial
records enjoy a “presumption of openness” that is rebuttable upon a demonstration that
sealing the record will preserve high values and is narrowly tailored to serve that
interest. Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2004). Where
the public interest in the case is higher, restraints on access are less acceptable and a
greater showing is necessary to overcome the presumption of access. In re Agent
Orange Product Liability Litigation, 104 F.R.D. 559, 573 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). Class actions
are by definition of public interest because some members of the public are members of
the case, and “the standards for denying public access to the record” should therefore
be strictly construed. Shane Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825
F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016).
The district court enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether good
cause exists to overcome the presumption of open access to documents filed in federal
courts. Geller v. Branic Int’l. Realty Corp., 212 F.3d 734, 738 (2d Cir. 2000). A judge
should carefully and skeptically review sealing requests to insure that there is an
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need. In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24,
27 (2d Cir. 1994).
“Documents falling into categories commonly sealed are those containing trade
secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue
2

information, pricing information, and the like.” Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Montsanto
Co., 184 F.R.D. 504, 506 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). However, courts have not afforded
significant weight to non-trade secret but confidential business information, which is not
entitled to the same level of protection from disclosure as trade secret information.
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 685 (3d Cir. 1988). Business documents that are
secret or that might cause adverse publicity if disclosed do not automatically warrant a
protective order, and broad allegations of harm unsubstantiated by specific examples or
articulated reasoning fail to satisfy the standard for nondisclosure. In re Parmaat
Securities Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Generally, courts consider the following six factors to assess whether information
is “sufficiently valuable and secret” to merit protection: (1) The extent to which the
information is known outside of the business; (2) the extent to which it is known by
employees and others involved in the business; (3) the extent of measures taken by the
business to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to the
business and its competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by the
business in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the
information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. Id.
Motion to Seal Certain Confidential Information
Defendant seeks to seal documents filed in connection with plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification. Defendant argues that sealing documents reflecting its analysis of
consumer injuries and complaints of defective microwaves is necessary to protect
confidential and proprietary information. In particular, defendant asserts that the
3

records contain confidential business information, the disclosure of which might harm its
reputation and competitive standing.
Specifically, defendant seeks sealing of documents from its Microwave Oven
Product Line Safety Council; excerpts from its Safety Database pertaining to alleged
incidents of glass door breakage in its microwave ovens; excerpts from its Factory
Service Database; deposition testimony related to pricing, repair cost and other
confidential information; and redacted portions of the parties’ expert reports that pertain
to confidential information.
Information from Safety Council, Safety Database and Service Database
Defendant asserts that the GE Microwave Safety Council includes only senior
technical, legal and business leaders within GE’s Appliance & Lighting business; it
reviews data and information to determine whether further action should be undertaken.
Defendant requests that Safety Council documents be sealed as sensitive, proprietary
business information, which reveals how GE reviews safety issues of its microwave
ovens; approval and implementation of corrective actions; and procedures of corrective
measures by GE and its suppliers.
Defendant states that its Safety Database contains confidential and proprietary
information including the identity of GE’s suppliers, discussions of issues associated
with certain GE product lines, not limited to microwave ovens; corrective action
determinations; and confidential personal information.
Defendant explains that information from its Service Database concerns product
parts that required repair or replacement that is not limited to glass breakage.
4

Defendant maintains that it has restricted dissemination of these documents and
stored them on a secure drive. Defendant asserts that disclosure would cause harm
because competitors could improve their own business and or develop a brandedproduct business. Defendant states: “If GE’s competitors were to gain access to
documentation regarding potential future designs, recommended modifications of
existing designs, and performance issues relating to GE-branded microwave ovens,
GE’s competitors would unfairly gain a competitive advantage.” Defendant goes on to
express concern that competitors could use or distort information regarding consumer
issues and concerns associated with its microwaves because the documents contain
information based on unsubstantiated consumer complaints. Finally, defendant argues
that the personally identifiable information of GE consumers justifies sealing the
documents.
Consumer complaints and information relevant thereto involving the allegedly
defective microwave are highly relevant to the class certification of this case and to
members of the public, putative class members who may own the defective microwaves.
Generally, the Court finds that the risk of competitive harm to defendant is lower than the
high level of public interest in a class action involving a defective product that could
potentially cause harm.
Thus, the Court will deny the motion to seal with regard to the Microwave Safety
Council documents G1, G2, G3, G4, which reflect consumer complaints and reveal little
information about designs or marketing that could enable a competitor to gain an unfair
economic or competitive advantage. Although defendant expresses concern that it will
5

suffer reputational injury if competitors have access to unsubstantiated consumer
complaints, plaintiffs point out that consumer complaints are accessible to the public
through the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Court is not persuaded that
defendant’s concern for competitive harm or reputational injury outweigh the presumption
of public access and the public interest in product safety. The Court will deny the motion
to seal as to consumer reports of microwave oven glass door breakage. However, the
Court will grant the motion to seal as to consumer personal identifying information
regarding defendant’s consumers should be redacted.1
The Court will grant the motion to seal as documents G5 through G12, which reveal
defendant’s internal investigations, communications, and policies and procedures of the
Microwave Safety Council relevant to problems with the defendant’s microwaves.
Defendant has expended resources to develop these analyses of microwave safety
issues; it has taken measures to ensure that this information is confidential and that the
information is not known outside of the Microwave Safety Council. The Court finds that
sealing this information is appropriate as disclosure could cause defendant significant
competitive harm.
Additionally, the Court finds that the names of defendant’s suppliers should be
redacted. Defendant has limited disclosure of its supplier information by allowing for
access only upon entering a code found on the microwave product; broad disclosure of

1Information

such as names, addresses, insurance carriers, medical information
should be redacted.
6

such information could likely cause defendant a competitive harm that outweighs
consumers’ interest in broadened access.
The Court will grant the motion to seal redactions to F1 and F2 from the Microwave
Safety Database and Factory Service Database, respectively, regarding the product
manufacturers and consumer identifying information.
The Court will deny the motion to seal as to references to consumer incident
reports regarding microwave oven glass door breakage as reflected in these exhibits.
Pricing, Sales and Profit Information
Plaintiffs represent that they do not oppose sealing documents concerning
pricing and profit, with the exception of sales information detailing the number of
microwaves sold. Defendant maintains that this information should be sealed because
it is drawn from confidential sales figures. Information concerning the amount of
microwaves sold relates directly to confidential information about pricing and profit, and
disclosure thereof could cause defendant competitive harm. See Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that detailed
product-specific financial information, including costs, sales and profits merited sealing
as confidential information). Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to seal as to
the documents or information relevant to pricing, sales and profit.
Design Documents
GE seeks to seal exhibits H1 and H3-H6 containing documents related to the
design and design changes of the allegedly defective GE microwave oven. This is the
type of information that is generally kept confidential and outweighs the presumption of
7

public access due to its importance to competition in the relevant field. See Culinary
Foods v. Raychem Corp., 151 F.R.D. 297, 305 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (noting that disclosure of
Raychem’s product design modification and changes would decrease Raychem’s
incentive to invest in safety devices).
However, the Court will not grant the motion to seal as to Exhibit H1, which is
entitled Branded Product Change Request (“BPCR”). The BPCR document indicates
an origination date of November 26, 2001, with approvals on November 27, 2001, and
January 14, 2002. It details a proposed change to the manufacture of the spring hinge
of the 1090/1095 microwave oven door. Defendant has a weaker interest in retaining
confidentiality in a document describing changes to products that have been in the
market for years. See Gustafson v. Goodman Mfr. Co. LP, 2016 WL 393640 (D. Ariz.
Feb. 2, 2016).
Defendant maintains that its competitors could use the information in Exhibit H1
to better understand how defendant develops products, considers design elements, and
assesses risks. However, such concern for confidentiality is diminished due to the age
of the document, the fact that the 1090/1095 models are no longer being produced, and
the limited amount of information contained therein. Further, the document presents
important information to the putative class members regarding the fact that a change to
spring hinge occurred relevant to the 1090/1095 microwave. The Court is not
persuaded that defendant’s interest in sealing the BPCR outweighs that of the public
policy favoring access to court filings.
The Court will grant the motion to seal as to Exhibits H3 though H6. Exhibit H3

8

reveals analysis of the spring design, while H4 through H6 represents the evaluation
conducted by an individual identified as a co-op, a position similar to an intern, of
specific products returned to defendant. The Court finds that these exhibits contain
specific confidential information regarding product design, testing and evaluation.
Motion to Seal Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and Exhibits
Defendant seeks to seal the opposition to the motion for class certification and
Exhibits B1, I, L, M, and U; and the redacted portions of its opposition brief, Exhibit D,
and Exhibit F.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court will seal: (1) Exhibit B1, which
discloses sales data; (2) redactions to Exhibit D concerning sales data; and (3)
redactions to Exhibit F concerning references to profits and sales. However, the Court
will not grant the motion to seal as to Exhibit I concerning excerpts from GE’s Safety
Database that reflect consumer complaints of microwave door glass breakage; and
Exhibit M, which is the BPCR document from November 26, 2001.
The Court will also deny the motion to seal as to Exhibit L (a spread sheet of
repair costs paid by consumers and discounts) and redactions to Exhibit F concerning
repair costs. Although defendant maintains these records as confidential and limits
access thereto, the Court notes that this is information that pertains to the amounts that
consumers themselves have paid, which diminishes defendant’s interest in the
confidentiality of the information. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that
defendant’s interest in confidentiality outweighs the public’s interest in access to
documents filed in this class action.

9

The Court will grant in part the motion to seal Exhibit U, which reflects excerpts
from the Seibel Database of consumer reported complaints; defendant’s internal
processes handling such reports; consumer personal contact information; and internal
communications concerning the reported incidents, pricing information and responsive
action taken by defendant. Consistent with its prior discussion, the Court finds that
information reflecting consumer reports concerning microwave oven door glass
breakage does not merit sealing. However, the Court will allow for redactions of the
consumer’s personal information, pricing information, internal policies and procedures,
and internal communications regarding responsive action.
Motion to Seal Confidential Information Filed with Plaintiffs’ Reply to GE’s
Opposition to Motion for Class Certification
Defendant seeks to seal (1) portions of the plaintiffs’ Reply brief that reflect
confidential information from GE’s Safety Database and from Dr. Daryl Williams’
transcript; (2) portions of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit entitled “Summary of Proposed Class
Structures and Remedies” that quote or otherwise disclose confidential information
produced by GE; (3) portions of Exhibit 6, the expert report of Duane Steffey, that
constitute confidential information from GE’s databases or sales data; (4) portions of
Exhibit 8, the transcript of Dr. Daryl Williams, that contain or reveal GE’s confidential
information; and (5) portions of Exhibit 11, Read’s deposition transcript, related to GE’s
confidential sales data, design documents, and an excerpt from GE’s Safety Database.
Relevant to the Reply memorandum, the Court will grant the motion to seal the
references to defendant’s sales data, internal policies and procedures, and internal
communications regarding responsive action. Relevant to Exhibit 1, the Court will
10

grant the motion to seal redactions to page 9, but the Court will deny the redactions to
page 8 that concern the BPCR and the likelihood of glass breakage. Relevant to
Steffey’s report, the Court will grant the motion to seal redactions concerning sales data.
Relevant to Williams’s transcript, the Court will grant the motion to seal as to references
to pricing profits and sales; the contract manufacturing agreement; internal testing,
investigations and communications; references to design documents and product
development with the exception of the BPCR; and will deny the motion to seal as
references to consumer or incident reports concerning microwave oven door glass
breakage and to the BPCR. Relevant to Read’s transcript, the motion to seal is
granted as to references to sales data; design documents and internal investigations
with the exception of the BPCR.
Motion to Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas L. Read
The district court has a “gatekeeping” role pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
702 and is charged with ensuring that an expert’s testimony rests on a reliable
foundation and is relevant to issues presented in the case. Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R.
Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256, 265 (2d Cir. 2002). A witness who is qualified as an
expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of
an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the
product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the
principles and methods to the facts of the case. Fed. R. Evid. 702.

11

The Court should consider (1) whether a theory or technique can be (and has
been) tested, (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review
and publication, (3) a technique's known or potential rate of error, and the existence and
maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and (4) whether a
particular technique or theory has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific
community. Daubert. 509 U.S. at 597; Amorgianos, 303 F.3d at 266. The burden is
on the party proffering the expert testimony to lay a foundation for its admissibility, and a
court must consider the totality of the expert witness’s background when evaluating
expert qualifications. Kuzmech v. Werner Ladder Co., 2012 WL 6093898, at *7 (D.
Conn. 2012).
Read is a licensed manufacturing engineer with 45 years of experience
performing glass failure analysis. He examined ten different 1090/1095 microwaves,
including seven that had glass breakage and three “exemplar” models with unbroken
glass provided by defendant. As to each of the ten models he examined, he reported
visible scuff marks on the door-hinge where the spring had rubbed against the glass in
the door.
Defendant maintains that Read’s opinion should be precluded due to incomplete
examination of the product model. Defendant characterizes Read’s analysis as an
extrapolation theory based on an insufficient sampling size. Alternatively, defendant
requests that Read’s testimony regarding alternative design theories be excluded as
unreliable even if Read is allowed to testify on other topics.
Defendant criticizes Read’s opinion as flawed due to his examination of an

12

insufficient number of microwaves that is “hopelessly unreliable,” without “explanation
for why 99% of the [microwave oven] glass doors never shattered.” Defendant points
out that even the opinion of plaintiffs’ statistical expert Abraham Wyner underscores the
weakness of Read’s analysis. Defendant asserts that Read lacks experience with the
design of microwave ovens and appliance doors, springs or hinges. Additionally,
defendant faults Read’s proffer of several untested alternative design theories that he
asserts could or should have prevented the glass breakage. Defendant claims that
Read was unable to justify the foundation for his design theories, which have not been
subjected to peer review and were prepared solely for litigation purposes.
Rule 702 requires a witness to be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience,
training or education. Kuzmech, 2012 WL 6093898, at *7. Here, Read’s background
specific to glass failure can assist the trier of fact on the issues relevant to this case.
The Court finds that Read is a qualified expert as to glass failure, which is highly
relevant to this case.
Although defendant maintains that Read’s conclusions are unreliable and
constitute speculation due to his inadequate examination, his opinions are not so
unreliable that preclusion is necessary. Defendant may attack the asserted flaws in
Read’s testimony on cross examination. Accordingly, the motion to preclude will be
denied.
Motion to Seal Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Preclude Read
Defendant seeks to seal certain confidential documents and information
referenced in its brief to preclude Read’s expert opinion. Specifically, defendant seeks

13

to seal redactions to Read’s declaration (Exhibit A) concerning the BPCR, Tolerance
Analysis, Safety Database, Service Database, and Safety Council documents;
redactions to deposition transcript (Exhibit B) concerning the number of 1090/1095
microwaves sold; redactions to the report (Exhibit D) by Dr. Paul Verghese that quotes
from GE’s confidential Safety Database; and information in the memorandum of law
regarding sales data and excerpts from GE’s confidential Safety Database.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court will grant the motion to seal as to
the redactions to Exhibit A regarding the Tolerance Analysis and internal policies and
procedures reflected in the Safety Council documents; and as to the redactions to
Exhibit B and the memorandum of law regarding sales numbers.
The Court will deny the motion to seal with regard to the redactions to Exhibit A
concerning any consumer reports of microwave oven door glass breakage from the
Safety and Service Databases and to the BPCR; the Court will also deny the motion to
seal as to redactions to Exhibit D and the memorandum of law concerning consumer
reports of microwave oven door glass breakage from the Safety Database.
Motion to Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of Abraham Wyner
Defendant moves to preclude the report and testimony of statistical expert
Wyner, arguing that his opinions are unreliable and misleading. Wyner is a tenured
Statistics Professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business.
Defendant does not challenge Wyner’s expertise to offer a statistical opinion.
Defendant seeks to exclude: (1) Wyner’s opinion that the 1090/1095 microwave ovens
are 1,000 times more likely to have a glass door breakage than defendant’s non14

1090/1095 microwaves; (2) his opinion that the 1% failure rate of the 1090/1095
microwaves violates the “Six Sigma” statistical paradigm; and (3) certain personal
opinions expressed in his deposition and expert report.
Plaintiffs respond that: (1) Wyner’s statistical analysis is not flawed by inclusion
of non-spontaneous glass breakage because such incidents are presumed to be
“neutrally distributed” among all microwave models; (2) Wyner will not offer expert
opinion regarding defendant’s internal manufacturing implementation of the “Six Sigma”
standard but should be allowed to offer opinion regarding “Six Sigma” as a general
statistical concept; and (3) Wyner’s personal or non-expert opinions in his deposition
testimony and his expert report may be precluded.
Although defendant asserts that plaintiffs provide no evidentiary support for
Wyner’s neutral distribution theory, defendant will have the opportunity to cross examine
Wyner. The Court finds that Wyner’s statistical analysis is not so unreliable that it
merits preclusion.
The Court will defer ruling on whether Wyner will be allowed to testify regarding
the general concept of “Six Sigma.” The Court has not relied upon Wyner’s discussion
of “Six Sigma” for purposes of resolving the issue of class certification. Should the
concept of “Six Sigma” require expert testimony at a hearing or trial, the Court will allow
for a voir dire of Wyner regarding his ability to offer reliable testimony that would be of
assistance to the trier of fact.
The motion to preclude will be denied as to Wyner’s statistical analysis; granted
as to his non-expert observations; and denied without prejudice as to his testimony
15

regarding the “Six Sigma” concept.
Motion to Seal Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Preclude
Wyner
Defendant moves to seal certain portions of its exhibits and memorandum in
support of its motion to preclude Wyner’s expert report and testimony. Specifically, it
seeks redaction of Wyner’s deposition testimony revealing data from defendant’s
confidential Safety Database (Exhibit A); redacted portions of Wyner’s Report revealing
data from defendant’s confidential Safety Database, sales data, and Safety Council
information (Exhibit B); redacted portions of the report by Dr. Paul Verghese quoting
from GE’s Safety Database (Exhibit C); and redactions to defendant’s memorandum of
law concerning sales data and information from the Safety Database.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the motion to seal will be granted as to
internal testing, investigations, communications, policies and procedures, design
documents, and sales data in Exhibits A, B, C and defendant’s memorandum of law; the
motion to seal will denied as to references to consumer reports of microwave oven door
glass breakage in Exhibits A, B, C and defendant’s memorandum of law. The Court
will also grant the motion to seal as to discussion of the Six Sigma standard in Exhibit B.
Motion to Preclude Report and Testimony of Colin Weir
Defendant seeks to preclude the expert report and testimony of Colin Weir,
plaintiffs’ proposed expert regarding damages. Defendant maintains that Weir’s
methodology is insufficiently rigorous and reliable to withstand a Daubert challenge.
Specifically, defendant attacks Weir’s “diminution in value” analysis as based on
16

unexplained assumptions; his disgorgement theories as conflicting with plaintiffs’ theory
of the case; his apportionment theory as flawed due to his use of an unjustifiable data
set; and his damages calculations as based on simple arithmetic that do not constitute
expert opinion. The Court notes that previous courts have deemed Weir to be a
qualified expert with regard to damages calculations. See Hughes v. The Ester C Co.,
317 F.R.D. 333, 342 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing cases).
Although defendant asserts that this Court should exercise its gatekeeping
function by precluding Weir’s expert opinion, the Court will defer on making such a
ruling at this stage of the case prior to any need to make a damages calculation. At
this stage of class certification, plaintiffs have submitted Weir’s opinions in support of
their assertion that the damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis; that the class
action will be manageable; and that it constitutes the superior method of adjudication.
The Court finds that Weir’s expert opinion is sufficient for the Court’s consideration of
the motion for class certification. See id. The motion to preclude will be denied
without prejudice.
Motion to Seal Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion to Preclude Weir
Defendant’s motion to seal the memorandum of law in connection with its motion
to preclude Weir concerns redactions to: (1) Portions of Exhibit B, Weir’s report, that
discuss defendant’s Safety Database, sales, profit information, and costs of repairing
microwaves including discounts provided; (2) references in Exhibit C, Weir’s deposition,
to sales data; (3) portions of Exhibit D, Wyner’s report, discussing information from the
Safety Database, sales data, and Safety Council information; (4) portions of Exhibit E,
17

Verghese’s report, quoting from the Safety Database; (5) the portion of Exhibit F, Weir’s
rebuttal report, that discusses sales data; (6) portions of Exhibit G, William Choi’s
report, that quote or discuss sales data, profits, and costs of replacing microwave oven
doors; (7) an excerpt from Exhibit M, the deposition of Brian Buente, defendant’s
Finance Manager for Global Product Management and Technology, discussing
defendant’s profits; and (8) portions of defendant’s memorandum of law that refer to
sales data for the 1090/1095 microwave ovens, and that quote from Buente’s deposition
testimony.
The Court will grant the motion to seal references to internal testing,
investigations, communications, policies and procedures, design documents, and sales
data in Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, M and the memorandum of law; the Court will deny the
motion with regard to consumer reports of microwave door glass breakage, the BPCR,
and costs of repair and discounts in Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, M and the memorandum
of law.
Motions to Seal Confidential Information filed with Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
Motions to Preclude Read, Wyner, and Weir
Defendant seeks to seal certain information presented in plaintiffs’ opposition
briefs and exhibits attached thereto to defendant’s motions to preclude.
Read
In its brief, defendant specifies that it seeks to seal redactions in plaintiffs’
opposition brief and Read’s deposition transcript that reveal information about
defendant’s design documents, internal investigations and Safety Database.
18

The Court will grant the motion to seal as to redactions relevant to design
documents and the Tolerance Analysis; the Court will deny the motion to seal as to the
transcript redactions that reference the BPCR and microwave oven glass breakage
reports.
Wyner
Defendant seeks to seal redactions to Wyner’s deposition that concern sales
data, information from a Safety Council document, information from the Safety
Database, redaction of Figure 1 from Wyner’s report that reflects information from the
Safety Database, and two redactions to plaintiffs’ opposition brief to the motion to
Wyner that concerns information from the Safety Database.
The Court will grant the motion to seal with regard to references to defendant’s
sales, profits and financial information in Wyner’s deposition transcript; the Court will
deny the motion to seal the redactions to the memorandum, Wyner’s transcript and
Wyner’s report concerning reports of microwave oven door glass breakage and his
analysis thereof.
Weir
Relevant to the opposition brief concerning preclusion of Weir, defendant seeks
to seal redacted portions of the brief and Weir’s deposition transcript that refer to profits,
discounts, and costs to repair microwaves; information concerning the cost of repairs;
and information from defendant’s Safety Database.

19

The Court will grant the motion to seal the redactions relevant to profits, pricing,
and financial and damages information.2 However, the Court will deny the motion to
seal as to references to reports of microwave oven door glass breakage from the Safety
Database and analysis thereof, and repair costs and discounts.
Motion to Seal Defendant’s Reply in Further Support of its Motion to
Preclude
Defendant moves to seal redactions to its Reply brief in Further Support of its
Motion to Preclude the Expert Report and Testimony of Read that references sales data.
The Court will grant the motion to seal the redactions that reference sales data.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court makes the following rulings:

The Motion to Seal Certain Confidential Information [doc. 164] is DENIED
as to the information that reflects consumer complaints about microwave oven door
glass breakage; and the BPCR. The motion to seal is GRANTED as to identifying
information relevant to the product manufacturers/suppliers and consumer identifying
information; defendant’s internal investigations, evaluation, testing, communication, and
policies and procedure with regard to microwave safety issues; references to
defendant’s pricing, sales, profit, and design documents.
The Motion to Seal Opposition to Motion for Class Certification and
Exhibits B1, D, F, I, L, M and U [doc. 178] is DENIED as to redactions of consumer
The Court will not rely upon Weir’s damages calculation to determine the motion for
certification.
2

20

reports of microwave oven door glass breakage; information concerning repairs and
discounts to consumers; and the BPCR. The motion to seal is GRANTED as to
disclosures of sales, pricing and profit; consumer personal information; internal policies
and procedures; and internal communications regarding responsive action.
The Motion to Preclude Expert Report and Testimony of Thomas Read
[doc. 180] is DENIED.
The Motion to Seal Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Preclude
Report and Testimony of Thomas Read and Exhibits A, B and D [doc. 181] is
DENIED as to the redactions to Exhibit A concerning any consumer reports of
microwave oven door glass breakage from the Safety and Service Databases and the
BPCR; and the redactions to Exhibit D and the memorandum of law concerning
consumer reports of microwave oven glass door breakage from the Safety Database.
The motion to seal is GRANTED as to the redactions to Exhibit A regarding the
Tolerance Analysis and internal policies and procedures reflected in the Safety Council
documents; and as to the Exhibit B and the memorandum of law regarding sales
numbers.
The Motion to Preclude Expert Report and Testimony by Abraham J. Wyner
[doc. 183] is DENIED as to Wyner’s statistical analysis; GRANTED as to his non-expert
observations; and DENIED without prejudice as to his testimony regarding the “Six
Sigma” concept.
The Motion to Seal Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Preclude
Abraham Wyner and Exhibits A, B and C [doc. 184] is DENIED as to references to
21

consumer reports of microwave oven glass door breakage in Exhibits A, B, C and
defendant’s memorandum of law; the motion is GRANTED as to internal testing,
investigations, communications, policies and procedures, design documents, and sales
data in Exhibits A, B, C and defendant’s memorandum of law; and as to discussion of
the Six Sigma standard in Exhibit B.
The Motion to Preclude Report and Testimony of Colin Weir [doc. 186] is
DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion to Seal Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Preclude
Colin Weir and Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G and M [doc. 187] is DENIED as to
references to consumer reports of microwave oven door glass breakage, the BPCR,
and costs of repair and discounts in Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, M and the memorandum
of law. The Motion is GRANTED as references to internal testing, investigations,
communications, policies and procedures, design documents, and sales data in Exhibits
B, C, D, E, F, G, M and the memorandum of law.
The Motion to Seal Confidential Information filed with Plaintiffs' Opposition
to Motion to Preclude Colin Weir [doc. 208] is DENIED as to references to consumer
reports of microwave oven door glass breakage, and repair costs and discounts; and
GRANTED as to redactions relevant to profits, pricing, and financial information and
damages.
The Motion to Seal Confidential Information filed with Plaintiffs' Opposition
to Motion to Preclude Abraham J. Wyner [doc. 209] is DENIED as to redactions to
the memorandum, Wyner’s transcript and Wyner’s report concerning consumer reports
22

of microwave oven door glass breakage; and GRANTED as to references to
defendant’s sales, pricing, profits and financial information in Wyner’s deposition
transcript.
The Motion to Seal Confidential Information filed with Plaintiffs' Opposition
to Motion to Preclude Thomas L. Read [doc. 210] is DENIED as to the redactions
concerning microwave oven door glass breakage reports from the Safety Database and
Read’s analysis thereof and references to the BPCR; the motion to seal is GRANTED
as to references to design documents and the Tolerance Analysis.
The Motion to Seal Confidential Information Filed with Plaintiffs' Reply to
GE's Opposition to Motion for Class Certification [doc. 211] is DENIED as to
references to consumer reports of microwave oven door glass breakage, the likelihood
of glass breakage and the BPCR. The motion to seal is GRANTED as to references to
defendant’s sales data; internal investigations, testing policies and procedures, and

communications; the contract manufacturing agreement; design documents and product
development with the exception of the BPCR.

The Motion to Seal Defendant's Reply in Further Support of Its Motion to
Preclude Thomas L. Read by General Electric Company [doc. 219] is GRANTED as
to redactions that reference sales data.
Dated this _7th__ day of March 2017 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Warren W. Eginton
Warren W. Eginton
Senior United States District Judge

23