St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. v. Biosense Webster, Inc. et al

Filing 242

ORDER denying 233 Plaintiff's Motion to Redact Hearing Transcript (Written pinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 05/14/14. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
St. Jude Medical, S.C., Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 12-621 ADM/TNL

Biosense Webster, Inc., Johnson & Johnson,
and Jose B. de Castro,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Edward F. Fox, Esq., Carrie L. Hund, Esq., Mark R. Bradford, Esq., Jeffrey R. Mulder, Esq., and
Nicole A. Delaney, Esq., Bassford Remele, PA, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Joseph W. Anthony, Esq., Mary L. Knoblauch, Esq., Courtland C. Merrill, Esq., and Steven C.
Kerbaugh, Esq., Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie, PA, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Plaintiff
St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.’s (“St. Jude”) Motion to Redact Hearing Transcript [Docket No.
233]. St. Jude requests the redaction of certain portions of the transcript from the motion hearing
conducted on October 24, 2013. Defendants Biosense Webster, Inc. (“Biosense”), Johnson &
Johnson, and Jose B. de Castro (together, “Defendants”) oppose the motion.
St. Jude’s motion is denied. The Court has reviewed the portions of the transcript St.
Jude seeks to redact, and holds that the designated statements are not so sensitive or confidential
that they justify retroactively censoring a public hearing.1 The proposed redactions primarily

1

Defendants submitted a copy of the hearing transcript that purportedly reflected St.
Jude’s proposed redactions. See Steven C. Kerbaugh Decl., Apr. 29, 2014 [Docket No. 240] Ex.
1 (under seal). However, St. Jude does not actually propose redacting several of the statements
highlighted by Defendants. Compare Nicole A. Delaney Decl., Apr. 22, 2014 [Docket No. 235]
Ex. E with Kerbaugh Decl. Ex. 1. Only St. Jude’s actual, proposed redactions are considered
herein.

relate to arguments made by Defendants regarding the purpose of de Castro’s term of years
agreement with St. Jude. Defendants have publicly made many of the same arguments in
previous filings without objection. See, e.g., Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Obj. [Docket No. 97], Defs.’
Mem. Opp’n to Pl.’s Mots. in Limine [Docket No. 206]. St. Jude also attempts to characterize
the statements made at the October 24, 2013 hearing as revealing the contents of properly-sealed
documents. At most, counsel for both parties discussed sealed documents in general terms
pertaining to the overarching legal issues. The mere fact that confidential documents exist, and
they might support a party’s arguments, is not itself confidential information. St. Jude’s
redactions do not target sales figures, salaries, technical data, or other information that might
actually confer an advantage to Defendants or other market competitors.
St. Jude also justifies its proposed redactions by down-playing the relative importance of
the statements at issue. Although it is true the Court made no mention of certain documents in
its February 3, 2014 Order [Docket No. 223], that does not mean those documents were not
considered. The documents at issue, as well as other confidential information, were considered
by the Court but not expressly discussed in an attempt to respect the parties’ confidentiality
designations. Retroactively redacting unpersuasive arguments and information is akin to
revising history.
Finally, St. Jude’s motion for redaction is denied because it risks setting a dangerous and
burdensome precedent for the post hoc sealing of public hearings. St. Jude had the opportunity
to request a closed hearing and present its justifications then; it chose not to do so. Whether or
not members of the public actually attended the hearing is now secondary. The hearing took
place in open court and became a part of the public records of the Court. The public has a right

2

to review what occurred. In that light, St. Jude has not demonstrated “good cause” for its
redactions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(e)(1); see also Keefe v. City of Minneapolis, No. 09-2941,
2014 WL 1805398, at *2-3 (D. Minn. May. 7, 2014) (declining to redact hearing transcript
without “clearly-defined and serious injury”) (citation omitted). St. Jude has not demonstrated a
risk of serious injury in this instance.
Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Plaintiff St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.’s Motion to Redact Hearing Transcript [Docket No.
233] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: May 14, 2014.

3