National Graphics Inc v. Brax Ltd et al

Filing 184

ORDER GRANTING #173 MOTION for Leave to File Oversized Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Service Litho-Print Inc, Brax Ltd, and Dynamic Drinkware LLC AND DENYING #174 MOTION to Restrict Document filed by Service Litho-Print Inc, Brax Ltd, and Dynamic Drinkware LLC, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 06/24/2015. The denial, however, is without prejudice, and defendants may supplement the record with information that would establish good cause to obtain the relief they seek. Counsel will be allowed 21 days within which to show cause why the material it designated confidential should remain under seal. If counsel fail to show cause within that time, the Clerk is directed to unseal the material. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATIONAL GRAPHICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-C-1119

BRAX LTD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Defendants Dynamic Drinkware LLC, Brax Ltd and Service Litho-Print, Inc. (collectively
“defendants”) moved the Court for an order granting them relief to file a reply memorandum that
exceeds the page limits set forth in the local rules. The Local Rules allow 15 pages in a reply, and
the defendants seek to file a reply that is 27 pages in length. The motion will be granted. The Court
has previously granted leave to file briefs exceeding the page limits in this case because the number
of patents and the complexity of the case. Accordingly, defendants motion to file a brief not to
exceed 27 pages is granted.
Defendants’ second motion seeks to restrict access to certain documents they have filed to
the parties. The information they seek to restrict are documents and/or information received from
third-party travel tags. The information was designated confidential/Attorney’s Eyes Only pursuant
to the protective order entered by the court in this case. This is the sole reason offered for restricting
the materials to the case participants.
In essence, plaintiff’s motion is to seal the designated materials from public view. Good
cause must be established in order to do so. The fact that a party designates material confidential

is not a ground to seal the documents once filed in a court record. See Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220
F.2d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000)(“calling a settlement confidential does not make it a trade secret, any
more than calling an executive’s salary confidential would require a judge to close proceedings if
a dispute erupted about payment (or termination)”) see also Hicklin Engineering, L.C. v. Bartell,
439 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2006) (“What happens in the federal courts is presumptively open to public
scrutiny.”). The records and decisions of the courts should be within the public’s view to allow the
public access to the reasoning upon which judicial decisions rest. See Leavell, 220 F.3d at 567. As
well, a stipulation by the parties does not satisfy the good cause standard.
Accordingly, the motion to restrict, or in essence seal, is denied. The denial, however, is
without prejudice, and defendants may supplement the record with information that would establish
good cause to obtain the relief they seek. Counsel will be allowed 21 days within which to show
cause why the material it designated confidential should remain under seal. If counsel fail to show
cause within that time, the material will be unsealed.
SO ORDERED this

24th

day of June, 2015.

s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2