Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. v. Lenovo International et al
Filing
1938
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER UNSEALING IN REDACTED FORM THE SANCTIONS ORDER RE: ASUSTeK, entry 1770. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 6/22/2011. (ce)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
NORTHERN DIVISION
PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATED,
LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER UNSEALING ORDER RE:
ASUSTeK
vs.
ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC., et al.,
Case No. 1:05-CV-64 TS
Defendants.
During the jury trial on this matter, the Court issued its ASUSTeK Sanctions Order,
which addressed the parties’ Objections to two Orders issued by the Magistrate Judge on
Plaintiff’s Motion for terminating sanctions against ASUSTeK. The ASUSTeK Sanctions
Order found that ASUSTeK’s conduct warranted a sanction in the form of an adverse jury
instruction—an instruction that was given to the jury.
However, because the ASUSTeK Sanctions Order was issued in the midst of the
jury trial, the Court granted ASUSTeK’s request to maintain it under seal until the jury
issued its verdict and directed ASUSTeK to file any specific objection to its unsealing.
Despite the sanction being public information as a result of the adverse jury
instruction, ASUSTeK objects to unsealing the Order on the following grounds: (1) there
1
is no good cause to unseal it; (2) it contains information subject to a protective order; (3)
it would prejudice ASUSTeK to unseal it prior to the resolution of the second phase of this
bifurcated case; and (4) another sanctions order against another Defendant remains
sealed.
The Court finds as follows: The jury has rendered its verdict in the first half of this
bifurcated proceeding and the second half has been largely resolved. Good cause is not
required to unseal the Order because Court orders are presumptively public documents.
The reasons for retaining an order relating to another party under seal do not apply to the
ASUSTeK sanctions order, especially where both of the Magistrate Judge’s related orders
on the same subject are on the public docket. Because those Orders, as well as the
adverse jury instruction are all matters of public record, there can be no prejudice to ASUS
in unsealing the Order imposing the sanction of an adverse jury instruction. As to the
information that is subject to a protective order, the Court will partially redact that
information. It is therefore
ORDERED that the ASUSTeK Sanctions Order (Docket No. 1770) will be Unsealed
in redacted form.
DATED June 22, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?