Yates v. Medical Specialties, Inc.

Filing 47

ORDER granting 44 Motion to seal and redact transcript. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 10/16/2012. (blf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11cv6
C. STEVEN YATES,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
MEDICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on the defendant’s Motion for Redaction of
Markman Transcript and to Seal the Unredacted Transcript. A party who seeks to seal any
pleading must comply with Local Civil Rule 6.1 (W.D.N.C. 2009). The Local Civil Rule provides
in relevant part as follows:
LCvR 6.1

SEALED FILINGS AND PUBLIC ACCESS.

(A)

Scope of Rule. This rule shall govern any request by a party to seal,
or otherwise restrict public access to, any materials filed with the
Court or utilized in connection with judicial decision-making. As
used in this rule, "materials" shall include pleadings as well as
documents of any nature and in any medium.

(B)

Filing Under Seal. No materials may be filed under seal except by
Order of the Court, pursuant to a statute, or in accordance with a
previously entered Rule 26(e) Protective Order.

(C)

Motion to Seal or Otherwise Restrict Public Access. A request by a
party to file materials under seal shall be made by formal motion,
separate and apart from the motion or other pleading sought to be
sealed, pursuant to LCvR 7.1. Such motion shall be filed
electronically under the designation "Motion to Seal." The motion or
supporting brief shall set forth:
(1)

a non-confidential description of the material sought
to be sealed;

(2)

a statement as to why sealing is necessary and why
there are no alternatives to filing under seal;

(3)

unless permanent sealing is sought, a statement as to
-1-

the period of time the party seeks to have the material
maintained under seal and as to how the matter is to
be handled upon unsealing; and
(4)
(E)

(F)

supporting statutes, case law or other authority.
***
Public Notice. No motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access shall be
determined without reasonable public notice. Notice shall be deemed
reasonable where a motion is filed in accordance with the provisions of
LCvR 6.1(C). Other parties, interveners, and non-parties may file objections
and briefs in opposition or support of the motion within the time provided by
LCvR 7.1 and may move to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.
Orders Sealing Documents. Orders sealing or otherwise restricting
access shall reflect consideration of the factors set forth in LCvR
6.1(C). In the discretion of the Court, such orders may be filed
electronically or conventionally and may be redacted.

***
L.Cv.R. 6.1(W.D.N.C. 2012). While defendant has not referenced the rule, the court takes notice
that what defendant contends is “confidential information” is information protected from public
disclosure as “trade secrets” as a matter of law, which would satisfy the requirements for sealing
under the Local Civil Rules. See The Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–39.
As reflected in the rule, the court is required to consider the factors contained in Local Civil
Rule 6.1(C). The first factor is found in Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(1), which requires that the parties
adequately describe the materials sought to be sealed. The rule requires "a non-confidential
description of the material sought to be sealed." L.Civ.R. 6.1(C)(1). The rule is intended to give
third-parties, including the press, fair notice of the nature of the materials sought to be sealed. The
description contained in the motion is adequate.
The court next considers Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(2), which requires "a statement as to why
sealing is necessary and why there are no alternatives to filing under seal." L.Cv.R. 6.1(C)(2).
Such statement has not been provided; however, the court understands that defendant seeks to seal
portions of the transcript that contain trade secrets.
As to Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(3), the are no provisions for sealing matters beyond the life
of the case, inasmuch as case materials must be placed in the National Archives. If the parties
believe at the conclusion of the case that such materials remain sensitive, they should move the
-2-

Clerk of Court to strike any such sensitive pleadings from the official court record.
Finally, the court has considered Local Civil Rule 6.1(C)(4), which requires the parties to
provide citations of law supporting the relief they seek. While the motion contains no citations of
current case law, such request is consistent with Media General Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417
F.3d 424 (4th Cir. 2005), which held as follows:
We have held that in determining whether to seal judicial documents, a
judicial officer must comply with certain procedural requirements. Washington Post,
807 F.2d at 390. The decision to seal documents must be made after independent
review by a judicial officer, and supported by "findings and conclusions specific
enough for appellate review." Goetz, 886 F.2d at 65-66. If a judicial officer
determines that full public access is not appropriate, she "must consider alternatives
to sealing the documents" which may include giving the public access to some of the
documents or releasing a redacted version of the documents that are the subject of
the government's motion to seal. Goetz, 886 F.2d at 66.
Id., at 429. The proposed sealing of the transcript in this matter would be consistent with current
case law inasmuch as the materials involve matters of little public interest, inasmuch as they relate
to a patent and/or unfair trade practices dispute between the parties to this action.
Having considered all of the factors provided in Local Civil Rule 6.1(C), the court will grant
the Motion to Seal. Inasmuch as the time for public response has not run to this consent motion, the
court will consider any objection to this Order from non-parties as an objection to the motion,
requiring no additional burden for any non-party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Redaction of
Markman Transcript and to Seal the Unredacted Transcript (#44) is GRANTED, the
unredacted transcript (#41) is SEALED, and the court reporter is instructed to redact the
transcript of the Markman hearing as provided in Exhibit A (#44-1) to the instant motion.
The Clerk of Court is instructed to send a copy of this Order to Court Reporter Jackie
Johnson.

-3-

Signed: October 16, 2012

-4-