Moore et al v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Filing 90

ORDER granting in part 66 Motion to Seal; denying as moot 83 Motion for Leave to File. The Clerk is directed to return all documents Plaintiffs sought to have filed under seal. Plaintiffs shall refile, within 7 days, the items listed in this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 6/2/15. (cmr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
OTIS MOORE and DOROTHY R. MOORE, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., )
)
Defendant.
)
_________

CV 114-062

ORDER
_________
After several rounds of briefing, Defendant has narrowed the information it asserts
should remain confidential to a single document, the expert report of Dr. Mari Truman. (See
doc. no. 89.) Upon review, the Court finds Defendant has demonstrated good cause for the
proposed redactions to Dr. Truman’s report because those redactions contain highly sensitive
information that would create a competitive disadvantage for Defendant if made public, (id. at
8-9). See Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1313-1314
(11th Cir. 2001); Loc. R. 79.7. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s
motion for leave to file supplemental briefing, (doc. no. 83), and GRANTS IN PART
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, (doc. no. 66). Thus, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK, pursuant to
Local Rule 79.7(c), to return all documents Plaintiffs sought to have filed under seal that have
been maintained in a secure file pursuant to this Court’s April 17, 2015 Order. Plaintiffs shall
refile, within seven days of this Order, the following documents and exhibits, with only the
redactions to Dr. Truman’s report approved above: (1) Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to

Defendant Wright Medical Technology Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr.
Mari Truman; (2) Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Wright Medical
Technology Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Sonny Bal; (3) Plaintiffs’
Response in Opposition to Defendant Wright Medical Technology Inc.’s Motion to Exclude
Expert Testimony of Dr. Reed Ayers; (4) Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Wright Medical
Technology Inc.’s Statement of Material Facts; and (5) Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to
Defendant Wright Medical Technology Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, at Augusta, Georgia.

2