TQ Delta LLC v. Pace Americas Inc.

Filing 211

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying as submitted (194 in 13-cv-1836-RGA, 209 in 13-cv-1835-RGA, 209 in 13-cv-02013-RGA) Unopposed MOTION to Redact April 6, 2016 Hearing Transcript (see Memorandum Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/28/2016. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-01835-RGA, 1:13-cv-01836-RGA, 1:13-cv-02013-RGA(nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
TQ DELTA LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 13-1835-RGA

PACE PLC, et al.,
Defendants.

TQDELTALLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 13-1836-RGA

ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Defendant.

TQ DELTA LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 13-2013-RGA

ZYXEL COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Non-party Broadcom has filed a motion to redact (No. 13-1835, D.I. 209; No. 13-1836,
D.I. 194; No. 13-2013, D.I. 209) a transcript of a hearing. It is unopposed. I consider the motion
in light of a prior thoughtful decision of this Court, to wit, Mosaid Tech Inc. v. LSI Corp, 878

F.Supp.2d 503 (D.Del. 2012) (Burke, M.J.).
The party seeking to seal has to establish good cause. Good cause requires a showing that
"disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to [that party]. The injury must be
shown with specificity." Id. at 507 (alteration in the original; citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Or, in other words, the party seeking to seal judicial records must demonstrate "a
compelling interest" in shielding those materials from public view. Id. at 508. Among other
things, I have considered the various factors, to the extent relevant, set forth in Pansy v. Borough
ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994), Courts should consider:
(1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2) whether the information being
sought is for a legitimate purpose; (3) whether disclosure will cause embarrassment to a
party; (4) whether the information to be disclosed is important to public health and safety;
(5) whether sharing the information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency;
(6) whether the party benefitting from the order is a public entity or official; and (7)
whether the case involves issues important to the public.
Mosaid, 878 F.Supp.2d at 508 n.2 (citing Pansy).
Broadcom has not submitted an affidavit or declaration in support of its motion.
Once information is disclosed in a judicial proceeding, it is in the public interest to be able
to understand the proceedings before a judge, and redaction of the transcripthinders that public
interest. Nevertheless, there are things that might be appropriately sealed in a public proceeding,
such as the pricing terms in license agreements, some other non-public financial information,
trade secrets, and other proprietary technology. Information in a transcript may hint at some of
these things without actually threatening any "clearly defined and serious injury." Things 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. Further, if there is a need
for redactions, the proposed redactions should be as narrow as possible.

I DENY the motion to redact as submitted. It is not supported by anything other than
argument. The proposed redactions are significantly broader than would be necessary even were
there some redaction-worthy disclosures in the transcript. In my opinion, there are redactions that
I would be inclined to grant (sometimes only in part) at pages 6, 7, 8, 14; 45, 48, 54, 59, 71, 73,
75, 76, 78, 86, 97, 101, and 118. I request Delaware counsel make arrangements to view my
marked-up transcript, and submit a correspondingly redacted transcript.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28day of April, 2016.