Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Medical, LLC

Filing 344

ORDER granting 329 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Seal Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff Arthrex's Motion In Limine Regarding Patent Issues Nos. 1 Through 9; granting 331 Parcus Medical LLC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to F ile Under Seal Parcus Medical LLC's Opposition to Arthrex's Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Certain Agreements, Opposition to Arthrex's Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Smith & Nephew Employees' Opinio ns Regarding Arthrex's C3 Agreements, Opposition to Arthrex's Motion In Limine to Exclude Hearsay Statements of Parcus's Customers or Potential Customers, and Opposition to Arthrex's Omnibus Motion In Limine Regarding Parcus' s Counterclaim V; granting 342 Arthrex's Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of Responses in Opposition to Parcus' Motions In Limine. The parties shall mail or hand-deliver the materials to be filed under seal to the Clerk of Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando on 5/7/2014. (ALB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ARTHREX, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:11-cv-694-FtM-29CM

PARCUS MEDICAL, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court are Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Defendant’s
Opposition to Plaintiff Arthrex’s Motion In Limine Regarding Patent Issues Nos. 1
Through 9 (Doc. 329), filed on May 5, 2014; Parcus Medical, LLC’s Unopposed Motion
for Leave to File Under Seal Parcus Medical, LLC’s Opposition to Arthrex’s Motion

In Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Certain Agreements, Opposition to
Arthrex’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence Regarding Smith & Nephew
Employees’ Opinions Regarding Arthrex’s C3 Agreements, Opposition to Arthrex’s
Motion In Limine to Exclude Hearsay Statements of Parcus’s Customers or Potential
Customers, and Opposition to Arthrex’s Omnibus Motion In Limine Regarding
Parcus’s Counterclaim V (Doc. 331), filed on May 5, 2014; and Arthrex’s Unopposed
Motion to Seal Portions of Responses in Opposition to Parcus’ Motions In Limine (Doc.
342), filed on May 6, 2014 (collectively, “Motions to Seal”). The parties seek leave to
file the above documents under seal pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement and

Joint Stipulated Protective Order. Doc. 329 at 1; Doc. 331 at 1, 2; Doc. 342 at 1. For
the foregoing reasons, the Motions to Seal are due to be granted.
Local Rule 1.09, which governs motions seeking leave to file documents under
seal, provides, in pertinent part:
Unless filing under seal is authorized by statute, rule, or
order, a party seeking to file under seal any paper or other
matter in any civil case shall file and serve a motion, the
title of which includes the words ‘Motion to Seal’ and which
includes (i) an identification and description of each item
proposed for sealing; (ii) the reason that filing each item is
necessary; (iii) the reason that sealing each item is
necessary, (iv) the reason that a means other than sealing
is unavailable or unsatisfactory to preserve the interest
advanced by the movant in support of the seal; (v) a
statement of the proposed duration of the seal; and (vi) a
memorandum of legal authority supporting the seal. The
movant shall not file or otherwise tender to the Clerk any
item proposed for sealing unless the Court has granted the
motion required by this section.
M.D.Fla. R. 1.09(a). Upon review of the Motions to Seal, each motion provides the
information required by Local Rule 1.09(a).
The parties state that filing their respective responses is necessary to
effectively support their motions in limine and that filing the responses under seal is
necessary to protect proprietary and other information the parties have designated
as confidential. Doc. 329 at 1-2; Doc. 331 at 2; Doc. 342 at 6-7. Moreover, the Court
previously found good cause for the parties to file under seal the motions in limine to
which the parties now seek leave to respond based upon the confidential and
proprietary information contained in the motions in limine. See Doc. 303. For the
same reasons, the Court again finds that allowing public access to the information
the parties seek to file under seal could harm the parties’ legitimate privacy and

-2-

proprietary interests, and there is no less restrictive method available to protect the
information. Therefore, because they are unopposed and there exists good cause, the
Motions to Seal will be granted and the parties permitted to file the documents under
seal.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Defendant’s Opposition to

Plaintiff Arthrex’s Motion In Limine Regarding Patent Issues Nos. 1 Through 9 (Doc.
329) is GRANTED.
2.

Parcus Medical LLC’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Under Seal

Parcus Medical LLC’s Opposition to Arthrex’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Evidence
Regarding Certain Agreements, Opposition to Arthrex’s Motion In Limine to Exclude
Evidence Regarding Smith & Nephew Employees’ Opinions Regarding Arthrex’s C3
Agreements, Opposition to Arthrex’s Motion In Limine to Exclude Hearsay
Statements of Parcus’s Customers or Potential Customers, and Opposition to
Arthrex’s Omnibus Motion In Limine Regarding Parcus’s Counterclaim V (Doc. 331)
is GRANTED.
3.

Arthrex’s Unopposed Motion to Seal Portions of Responses in Opposition

to Parcus’ Motions In Limine (Doc. 342) is GRANTED.
4.

The parties shall mail or hand-deliver the materials to be filed under

seal to the Clerk of Court. The documents will remain under seal for the duration of
this litigation, or until further order of the Court.

-3-

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on this 7th day of May, 2014.

Copies:
Counsel of record

-4-