Isys Technologies v. Google et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM in Support re 51 MOTION to Redact 46 Transcript,,,, 45 Transcript,,,, filed by Counter Claimant Google. (Rossa, Thomas)

Peter J. Willsey (pro hac vice)
Brendan J. Hughes (pro hac vice)
COOLEY LLP
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
777 6th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-3723
Telephone: [phone]; Facsimile: [phone]
Roger R. Myers (pro hac vice)
Thomas J. Rossa, #2806
Robert L. Stolebarger (pro hac vice)
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
299 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2263
Telephone: [phone]; Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants GOOGLE INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., ACER
AMERICA CORP., AMAZON.COM, INC. and BEST BUY CO., INC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ISYS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Nevada
Corporation,

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-507 CW

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO REDACT HEARING
TRANSCRIPT

v.
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware Corporation;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; ACER AMERICA CORP.,
a California Corporation; AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation; and BEST BUY CO.,
INC., a Minnesota Corporation,

JUDGE CLARK WADDOUPS

Defendants.
Defendants Google Inc., Acer America Corp., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
(erroneously sued herein as Samsung Electronics USA, Inc.) (collectively, “Defendants”) seek
redaction of portions of the transcript of the June 14, 2011 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the grounds that such redaction is

-1#281596 v1 slc

necessary to protect Defendants’ highly confidential business information, including details of
internal manufacturing and business processes.
The court has the power to allow the parties to protect confidential information under
FRCP Rule 26(c). The court also has provided ways to automatically preserve confidential
private information under Local Rule 5.2-1. Thus by Rule, the court has the power to control
and direct redaction as appropriate to preserve the assets of the parties before it. In other words,
the court has the power and the discretion to order redaction of the portions of the transcript that
disclose Defendants’ highly confidential business information.

Crystal Grower’s Corp. v.

Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980) (“It is beyond question that this Court has
discretionary power to control and seal, if necessary, records and files in its possession.”); In re
Iowa Freedom of Info. Council, 724 F.2d 658, 664 (8th Cir. 1983) (sixty-two pages of 649-page
hearing transcript properly withheld from public because they contained marketing and
distribution plans that “could be of substantial use to competitors” and whose disclosure “would
do considerable damage to [the party’s] business and property”).
The requested redactions are narrowly tailored to include only Defendant’s highly
confidential business information. The very limited nature of the redactions keeps the substance
of the hearing intact such that a reader of the redacted transcript could readily evaluate the merits
of the case, and “[t]he public’s general interest in the honesty and fairness of [the] Court [will not
be] impaired.” Crystal Grower’s, 616 F.2d at 462; see also, e.g., United States v. McVeigh, 119
F.3d 806, 815 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he substantial portions of the documents that were made
publicly available have provided the press and the public with a constitutionally sufficient
opportunity to understand the decisions at issue.”).
For the foregoing reasons, good cause for redacting the transcript exists, and Defendants
respectfully move the Court to order redaction of the hearing transcript in accordance with
Defendants’ concurrently submitted Redaction Request.

-2#281596 v1 slc

DATED this 9th day of August, 2011.

/s/ Thomas J. Rossa
Roger R. Myers
Thomas J. Rossa
Robert L. Stolebarger
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN, LLP
299 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Attorneys for Defendants
Google Inc., Samsung Electronics USA, Inc., Acer America
Corp., Amazon.com, Inc., and Best Buy Co., Inc.
Peter J. Willsey
Brendan J. Hughes
COOLEY LLP
777 6th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-3723
Attorneys for Defendants
Google Inc., Acer America Corp., Amazon.com, Inc., and
Best Buy Co., Inc.
CC:

Karen Murakami

-3#281596 v1 slc