Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Medical, LLC

Filing 92

ORDER granting 88 Defendant, Parcus Medicals Renewed Motion to File Under Seal Unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims in Response to Arthrexs Amended Complaint, for Limited Purpose of In Camera Inspection and Judicial Determination of Whether Sealing is Appropriate. The Court RESERVES ruling on whether it is appropriate to file the documents under seal with the Court. Defendant is to submit to the Court the unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims 87 no later than Tuesday, September 25, 2012, for in camera review. The unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims may be submitted via U.S. Mail, FedEx, or UPS to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, United States Courthouse and Federal Building 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, Attn: Doug Kemp.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/17/2012. (LMF)

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

Case No.: 2:11-cv-694-FtM-29SPC

PARCUS MEDICAL, LLC,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/

ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant, Parcus Medical’s Renewed Motion to
File Under Seal Unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims in Response to Arthrex’s
Amended Complaint, for Limited Purpose of In Camera Inspection and Judicial Determination
of Whether Sealing is Appropriate (Doc. # 88), filed on September 7, 2012. Defendant filed its
initial Motion to File Under Seal Unredacted First Amended Answer and Counterclaims for
Limited Purpose of In Camera Inspection and Judicial Determination of Whether Sealing is
Appropriate (Doc. # 76) on August 23, 2012.

Six days later, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint (Doc. # 81), thus making the issue regarding Defendant’s First Amended Answer and
Counterclaims (Doc. # 66) moot. In light of Plaintiff’s filing of an Amended Complaint (Doc. #
81) and the Court’s Order (Doc. # 89) dated September 12, 2012, Defendant, Parcus Medical
renews its previously filed Motion for the same limited purpose of judicial determination. (Doc.
# 76). Defendant incorporates its previous motion (Doc. # 76) into its renewed motion (Doc. #
88) in its entirety.

The decision to conduct an in camera review falls within the broad discretion of the
Court. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 (1989). Here, Defendant, Parcus Medical moves the
Court to review, in camera, its unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. # 87) in
Response to Plaintiff, Arthrex’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 88). Defendant states that it does
not seek to file its unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims under seal because it
believes that sealing is appropriate, but for the sole purpose of obtaining judicial determination
as to whether Count V of Defendant’s Counterclaim should be publicly filed via ECF or filed
under seal. (Doc. # 88, p. 1).

Pursuant to Defendant’s initial Motion (Doc. # 76), Defendant has

no meaningful choice other than to seek a judicial determination as to whether it should publicly
file its Amended Answer and Counterclaim or place it under seal due to the previous threats by
Arthrex to both Parcus Medical and its undersigned counsel of further litigation if any allegedly
“confidential” information is filed. (Doc. # 76, p. 2).
Given the Court’s discretion to use in camera review to make determinations regarding
various aspects of the litigation process, the Court grants the Defendant leave to submit the
unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims (Doc. # 87) for in camera review. The Court
reserves ruling as to whether it is appropriate to file with the Court the Amended Answer and
Counterclaims under seal until further review of the pleading.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
(1) Defendant, Parcus Medical’s Renewed Motion to File Under Seal Unredacted Amended
Answer and Counterclaims in Response to Arthrex’s Amended Complaint, for Limited
Purpose of In Camera Inspection and Judicial Determination of Whether Sealing is
Appropriate (Doc. # 88) is GRANTED.

2

(2) The Court RESERVES ruling on whether it is appropriate to file the documents under
seal with the Court.
(3) Defendant is to submit to the Court the unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims
(Doc. # 87) no later than Tuesday, September 25, 2012, for in camera review. The
unredacted Amended Answer and Counterclaims may be submitted via U.S. Mail,
FedEx, or UPS to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell, United States Courthouse and Federal
Building 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901, Attn: Doug Kemp.

DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 17th

Copies: Counsel of Record

3

day of September, 2012.