KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. v. HUNT CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC.

Filing 315

ORDER granting 313 Motion to Redact 306 Transcript,; that the Joint Motion to Redact and Seal be and hereby is GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following sections of the trial transcript and corresponding trial exhibit are hereby sealed; etc.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 7/31/2017. (ld, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Civil Action No. 11-3684 (SRC) (CLW)

KON[NKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

Document Electronically filed

V.

H NT CO T
C AN
ASSUMED TRADE NAME FOR CARl BE

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court by the parties, by and through
their respective undersigned attorneys, for an Order sealing materials pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 5.3; and a Discovery Confidentiality Order having been entered in this case on August 27,
2012 (ECF No. 3$); and the Court having reviewed the submissions in support of the Motion to
Redact and Seal; the following shall constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law and
the Order of the Court:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

During the course of discovery in this action, the parties obtained discovery from

non-parties, including non-party Legrand North America (“Legrand”).

On January 2$, 2014,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Koninklijke Philips N.y. (“Philips”) took the deposition of
Legrand through Legrand’s designee, Donald R. Torrant.

During that deposition, Legrand

marked various portions of that transcript (the “Torrant Deposition Transcript”) as confidential
pursuant to the terms of the Discovery Confidentiality Order.
2.

On the morning of June 12, 2017, Philips read portions of the Torrant Deposition

Transcript into the trial record.

Philips also entered a copy of those portions of the Torrant

Deposition Transcript into the record as trial exhibit KPTX-509.
3.

The parties seek to seal sections of the June 12, 2017 Morning Session trial

transcript (ECF No. 306) and the corresponding trial exhibit KPTX-509 containing information
that Legrand has designated confidential.
4.

The materials sought to be sealed contain and/or reference confidential

information regarding Legrand’s marketing materials and strategies that has been designated
confidential under the Discovery Confidentiality Order.

Legrand has provided a declaration

from Donald R. Torrant, satisfying the requirements of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3), that identifies
the nature of the materials at issue, the legitimate interests which warrant maintaining the
confidentiality of the information, the clearly defined and serious injury to Legrand if the relief
sought is not granted, and why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.’
5.

If the content of above-referenced portions of the filed materials were publicly

disclosed, it would violate the confidentiality interests of Legrand and would cause serious harm.
6.

Public disclosure of the subject information would serve no legitimate purpose

nor would it aid in promoting fairness or efficiency among the parties and non-parties to this
action.
7.

There is no less restrictive means for preserving the confidentiality of this

information.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

8.

There is a presumptive common law right of public access to all material filed in

connection with judicial proceedings. Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
‘In addition to sections of the transcript, the declaration of Donald R. Torrant also identifies a deposition exhibit
(Exhibit H from the deposition of Donald R. Torrant) that Legrand seeks to remain confidential. That exhibit,
however, was not entered into evidence at trial and is not part of the record before this Court, so an order sealing that
exhibit is not necessary. See June 12, 2017 Afternoon Session Trial Ir. 3:15-21.

2

949 F.2d 653, 660-62 (3d Cir. 1991).
9.

The right of access to judicial records is not absolute. Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied

Extrusion Techs., Inc., 99$ F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993).
10.

It is the burden of the party seeking to overcome the presumption of access to

demonstrate the need to keep the materials under seal. See, e.g., Leucadia, 99$ F.2d at 166
(citing Westinghouse, 949 F.2d at 663).
11.

While the party seeking protection has the burden of demonstrating that it is

entitled to protection, courts will find that “good cause” to protect information from exposure
exists where disclosure would result in a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking to
overcome the presumption of access. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 7$7-91 (3d
Cir. 1994).
12.

The Court finds that good cause exists for protecting Legrand’s confidential

marketing information.
13.

The interests of the parties warrant entry of an Order to Seal Legrand’s

confidential marketing information.
14.

The interests of the public that warrant entry by the Court of this Order to Seal

include the interest of not burdening litigants’ access to the Court by requiring public disclosure
of confidential information as a condition of litigating their rights. No interest of the public
warrants disclosure of the confidential information sealed by this Order to Seal.
15.

Should this Order to Seal not be entered, Legrand’s confidential information

would be available for public consumption, thereby potentially subjecting it to competitive harm.
16.

The Court finds that the information sought to be sealed satisfies the standards set

forth in Local Civil Rule 5.3.

3

17.

There is no less restrictive means for preserving the confidentiality of this

information.

ITISthis dayof

,2017,

ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Redact and Seal be and hereby is GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following sections of the trial transcript and
corresponding trial exhibit are hereby sealed:
Trial Transcript
June 12, 2017 Morning
Session (ECF No. 306)
[page:line #1
68:16
70:4
70:9
70:9
70:9
70:10
71:12
71:24
75:18
76:23

Trial Exhibit KPTX-509
Transcript of Deposition
of Donald R. Torrant
[page:line #]
10:3
12:8
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:15
15:3
17:3
25:18
27:19

76:25

28:2

77:1
79:20-21
79:22
79:23
8 1:23
83:2

28:4

Words Surrounding Sections
of Transcripts Sought to be
Redacted/Sealed
were.
views”
“Yes.
copies”
“still... in”
“it’s.
minus”
minus.. . . So”
“approximately.. . were”
“is... downloads”
“is
“. . . were”
salespeople”
“than
“around. . . people”
“approximately. . people”
“was... The”
“was.. and”
“was
people”
“to.
“of.
salespeople”
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

35:3

.

35:4

.

35:5

.

.

Hon.

4

.

.

.

.

SUBMITTED WITH CONSENT Of COUNSEL:
s/ Brian J. McMahon
Brian J. McMahon
J. Brugh Lower
GIBBONS P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark. NJ 07102
Tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
j lowergibbonslaw.com

sI Gerald Krovatin
Gerald Krovatin
KROVATIN KLINGEMAN LLC
60 Park Place, Suite 1100
Newark, NJ 07102
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Luke Santangelo (pro hac vice)
SANTANGELO LAW OFFICES, P.C.
125 S. Howes St., 3rd floor
fort Collins, CO 80521
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

David M. Kelly (pro hac vice)
Robert D. Litowitz (pro hac vice)
Stephanie K. Bald (pro hac vice)
KELLY IP, LLP
1919 M Street. NW
Suite 610
Washington. DC 20036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim
PtaintiffHunt Control Systems, Inc., an
assumed trade name for Caribe Corporation

Attorneys for Plaint([f/Counterclaim
Defendant Koninkhjke Philips N. V

5