InterDigital Communications, Inc. et al v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. On February 11, 2016, the parties jointly moved for an order sealing the courtroom during an upcoming oral argument to be held on February 16, 2016. The argument concerns whether an arbitration award should be enforced o r whether the proceeding should be stayed pending a decision of another related proceeding in Paris. The parties' joint request is denied without prejudice to the parties making a particularized showing with respect to any particular information. So ordered. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 2/11/2016) (rjm)

USDC SONY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRON!CALL Y FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOC#

I

1:9--fl /,.

DATE FILED:

InterDigital Communications, Inc.,
et al.,

'(

{112

15 Civ. 4485 (JGK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Petitioners,
- against Huawei Investment & Holding Co.,
Ltd., et al.,
Respondents.

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

On

Febr~ary

11, 2016, the

part~es

jointly moved for an

order sealing the courtrooCT during an upcoming oral arguCTent to
be held on February 16, 2016. The argument concerns whether an
arbitration award should be enforced or whether the proceeding
should be stayed pending a decision of another related
proceeding in Paris. These types of proceedings are cornmon and
routinely held in open court.
The common law right of public access and First Amendment
right of access to judicial documents and proceedings are well
established. Lugosch v.

Pyramid_~o~-~t_Onondaga,

119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Against the common law

435 F.3d llO,

righ~

o~

public

access to judicial proceedings, the court must balance competing
considerations such as the privacy interests of resisting
disclosure. Id. at 119. And in the context of the presumptive

First Amendment right to public access, the Court must determine
whether these proceedings are the types of proceedings that are
historica:ly open to the press and the general public and
"whether public access plays a significant positive role in the
functioning of the particular process in question." Newsday LLC
v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 164

(2d Cir. 2013)

(quoting

Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120). "[T]he presumptive right of access
prevails unless it is overcome by 'specific, on-the-record
findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and
only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that
aim.'" Id. at 165 (quoting ;r..ugosch, 435 F.3d at 124).
The parties have made no effort to provide a justification
for why the courtroom should be sealed. The parties mention only
that "the written submissions and the record to date reference a
significant amount of confidential business information" and
that the oral argument "may make reference to such confidential
business information." Dkt. No. 70. The Protective Order entered
on July 14, 2015, specifically contemplated that "[t]he Court
may determine that information alleged to be confidential is not
confidential or that its disclosure is necessary for the proper
disposition of the proceeding." Moreover, the Protective Order
was not binding on the Court. Dkt. No. 24. The motion argument
relates to InterDigital's motion to enforce an arbitration award
and Huawei's motion to stay the proceeding in this Court. The

2

issues to be addressed at the argument do not appear to require
an in-depth discussion of confidential business infornation. It
is incredible to think that the parties could not make
intelligent legal arguments without referring to highly
confidential information.
"When [parties] call on the courts, they must accept the
openness that goes with subsidized dispute resolution by public
(and publicly accountable) officials. Judicial proceedings are
public rather than private property[.]" Union Oil Co. of
California v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000);
Hicklin Eng'g, L.C. v. Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir.
2006)

("What happens in the federal courts is presumptively open

to public scrutiny. Judges deliberate in private but issue
public decisions after public arguments based on public
records.") .
The parties' joint request is denied without prejudice to
the parties

~aking

a particularized showing with respect to any

particular information.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
February 11, 2016

ohn G. Koeltl
States District Judge

3