Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 972

ORDER denying 793 Motion to Redact Transcript. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 09/12/11. cc:attys 9-12-11 (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., et al
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 6:09-CV-446
PATENT CASE

ORDER
Defendant J.C. Penney (“JCP”) seeks redaction of the transcript from a motion hearing on
June 29, 2011 (Docket No. 793). The motion is DENIED.
Defendant offers no explanation for why the Court should redact multiple lines of the
transcript except the assertion that the transcript contains “certain confidential internal business
information of JCP which were designated of ‘CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.’”
The requests for redaction refer to terms of JCP’s agreement with outside web analytics vendor
Coremetrics.
The Eastern District of Texas has procedures in place for attorneys wishing to request
transcript redaction. Transcript Procedures for Attorneys (2008)1; Local Rule CV-5. The procedures
protect five limited categories of personal identifiers: social security numbers, financial account
numbers, dates of birth, names of minor children, and home addresses. JCP has not identified any
information that fits within these limited categories.

1

http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/page1.shtml?location=attorney:transcripts

As courts in this District have already recognized:
[t]he special nature of courtroom proceedings has repeatedly been recognized by the
Supreme Court: ‘A trial is a public event. What transpires in the court room is public
property. If a transcript of the court proceedings had been published, we suppose
none would claim that the judge could punish the publisher for contempt. . . . Those
who see and hear what transpired can report it with impunity. There is no special
perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions
of democratic government, to suppress, edit, or censor events which transpire in
proceedings before it. Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 374, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 1254
(1947). The parties’ interests in privacy fade when the information involved is
already in the public. Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 494-95; 95
S.Ct. 1029, 1046 (1975). If a privacy interest is to be protected in judicial
proceedings, the parties must utilize means which avoid public documentation or
other exposure of private information. Id. at 496.

See The Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Thermo-Ply, Inc., 9:07-CV-274, Docket No. 27 (Clark, J.). All
statements made by JCP at the hearing were made in open court and without a request to seal the
courtroom. The Court reminds the parties that it is each party’s responsibility to inform the Court,
if at all possible, before confidential information is disclosed in open court and request a sealed
courtroom and record. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for redaction is DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of September, 2011.

__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2