Dong v. BASF Corporation et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting with modification 29 Motion Redact Confidential and Proprietary Information. Court to Seal Document No. 28. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/28/2013. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-605-MOC-DCK
YAN DONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
BASF CORPORATION and
JONATHAN ANTONUCCI,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Defendants’ Motion To Redact
Confidential And Proprietary Information” (Document No. 29) filed February 28, 2013. This
motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the
undersigned will grant the motion, with modification.
Defendants’ motion asserts that “Plaintiff’s Brief In Support Of Motion To Compel
Production Of Documents” (Document No. 28) discloses confidential and proprietary
information it had marked as “Confidential” and provided to the Plaintiff pursuant to the parties’
“Protective Order” (Document No. 16).

Defendants contend that the potential harm from

disclosure to public of this “highly confidential and sensitive information” outweighs any
minimal interest in having the materials made publicly available.

(Document No. 29).

Purportedly, Plaintiff consents to the redaction of most of the information Defendants seek to
protect. Id.

Instead of the Court attempting to redact certain portions of Plaintiff’s recent filing, the
undersigned will direct that Document No. 28 be sealed until otherwise ordered. The parties
should confer regarding Document No. 28 and attempt to reach an agreement on whether it
should remain sealed, or should be re-filed with redactions.
The Court will decline to issue any instructions at this time regarding the filing of
“Confidential” documents in general. It appears that the “Protective Order” allows for the filing
of “Confidential” documents as exhibits to motions and does not seem to require any redaction
or sealing. (Document No. 16, pp.2-3). If Defendants wish to modify the “Protective Order,”
they must confer with Plaintiff and then make an appropriate motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Defendants’ Motion To Redact Confidential
And Proprietary Information” (Document No. 29) is GRANTED with modification, as more
fully described herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SEAL “Plaintiff’s Brief In
Support Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents” (Document No. 28), including the
attached exhibits.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 28, 2013

2