Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. et al v. Hayward Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 167

ORDER denying 165 Motion to Seal. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical information and deadlines. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 6/12/2012. (Edwards, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DMSION

No. S:11-CV-4S9- F

PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC.; )
and DANFOSS DRIVES A/S,
)
Plaintiffs,
)

v.
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.; and
HAYWARD POOL PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the defendants' Motion to Seal Proposed Sealed
Motion [DE-16S]. The "proposed sealed motion" at issue is the defendants' "Motion to Stay
Action Pending Re-Examination of the Asserted Patents by the PTO" [DE-160], and all the
exhibits appended thereto. Citing Local Civil Rules 7.1, 79.2, and Section T(1)(a)(1) of the
Court's CM/ECF Policy Manual, defendants contend they have complied with all the
requirements of the Local Rules and the Policy Manual, and that "opposing counsel" consents to
the motion to seaL
The defendants contend sealing the voluminous documents they have filed is required
because those documents contain "information concerning the mediation conducted by the
parties on May 1S, 2012, including a discussion of the particular settlement efforts of the
parties, which is confidential information that could be damaging to either party if revealed to
the marketplace." Motion to Seal [DE-16S], p. 2. They suggest that redaction is inadequate
because the court requires the detailed information to understand why mediation efforts have
been unavailing and to show defendants have not been dilatory in seeking the instant stay.
The sensitive details that the defendants wish to impart only to the undersigned and to
"selected participants" are irrelevant to the propriety of allowing the defendants' Motion to Stay

[DE-160], as are the proposed attachments thereto [DE-161, -162, -163 and -164], containing
what appear to be copies of all the materials sent to the United States Patent and Trademark
Office in support of defendants' application for reconsideration of the subject patents. The
details that the defendants wish to place in the record but shield from view by the public are of
no consequence to this court's determination whether a stay of the instant proceedings is
appropriate pending the PTO's consideration whether to reconsider the patents themselves.
The defendants' Motion to Seal [DE-16S] is DENIED, without prejudice to file an
amended motion to stay, within ten (10) days hereof, limited to the facts and law relevant to a
determination thereof, or to file the proposed Motion to Stay [DE-160], with or without its
proposed exhibits, as a public document within three (3) days hereof. Failure to take either

course will result in no action being taken by the court on the proposed Motion to Stay [DE­
160). See Local Rule 79.2.

SO ORDERED .

.p..

This, the ~ day of June, 2012.

J
S

SC. FOX
or United States District Judge

2