Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. et al v. Zoll Medical Corporation

Filing 1042

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered Accordingly, 1) plaintiffs assented-to motion to seal its opposition to defendants motions in limine and supporting exhibits (Docket No. 1015) is DENIED, 2) defendants assented-to motion to seal its opposition to plaintiffs motions in limine (Docket No. 1035) is DENIED and 3) defendants motion to seal Exhibit 2 to its witness and exhibit list (Docket No. 1040) is DENIED.For the reasons set forth above, the parties motions in limine (Docket Nos. 991, 992, 993, 994, 996, 999, 1000, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1008, 1009, 1010 and 1011) and supporting exhibits (Docket Nos. 1001 and 1007) are hereby UNSEALED.So ordered. (Caruso, Stephanie)

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

Koninklijke Philips N.V. and
Philips Electronics North
America Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Zoll Medical Corporation,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.
10-11041-NMG

ORDER
GORTON, J.
Trial in this patent case involving automated external
defibrillators (“AEDs”) and components thereof is scheduled to
begin on Monday, July 24, 2017 at 9:00 A.M.

On June 9, 2017

this Court allowed, by endorsement, separate motions from
Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics North America
Corporation (collectively, “plaintiffs”) and Zoll Medical
Corporation (“defendant”) to seal their respective motions in
limine and supporting exhibits (Docket Nos. 1012 and 1013).
Now pending before the Court are 1) plaintiffs’ assented-to
motion to seal its opposition memoranda to defendant’s motions
in limine and supporting exhibits, 2) defendant’s assented-to
motion to seal its opposition memoranda to plaintiffs’ motions

-1-

in limine and 3) defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit 2 to its
witness and exhibit list.
In this session of the District Court the sealing of
pleadings during discovery is liberally tolerated.
approach trial.

Not so as we

Pursuant to Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

U.S. 589, 597 (1978), there is a presumption in favor of access
to judicial records.

The party seeking to seal documents must

demonstrate sufficient reason to overcome that presumption.
Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 649 F.3d 34, 71 (1st Cir.
2011).
In support of their motions to seal, the parties cite Local
Rule 7.2(d) and a protective order entered by this Court on
October 26, 2011.

The parties have not, however, overcome the

presumption of judicial access because any sensitive proprietary
business and technical information will soon become public at
trial.
Moreover, although the protective order can provide “good
cause” to seal documents during discovery, it is not sufficient
to seal filings regarding trial issues. Bradford & Bigelow, Inc.
v. Richardson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 445, 448 (D. Mass. 2015)
(“Parties . . . may not rely solely on their designations under
a discovery protective order to support sealing motions.”).

-2-

Accordingly, 1) plaintiffs’ assented-to motion to seal its
opposition to defendant’s motions in limine and supporting
exhibits (Docket No. 1015) is DENIED, 2) defendant’s assented-to
motion to seal its opposition to plaintiffs’ motions in limine
(Docket No. 1035) is DENIED and 3) defendant’s motion to seal
Exhibit 2 to its witness and exhibit list (Docket No. 1040) is
DENIED.
For the reasons set forth above, the parties’ motions in
limine (Docket Nos. 991, 992, 993, 994, 996, 999, 1000, 1004,
1005, 1006, 1008, 1009, 1010 and 1011) and supporting exhibits
(Docket Nos. 1001 and 1007) are hereby UNSEALED.
So ordered.
/s/ Nathaniel M. Gorton
d
Nathaniel M. Gorton
United States District Judge
Dated July 7, 2017

-3-