Ultratec, Inc. et al v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. et al

Filing 211

ORDER: Either plaintiffs Ultratec, Inc. and Captel, Inc. or defendants Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, Inc. have until June 5, 2014 to file unsealed, redacted copies of the documents filed as exhibits no. 1-20, 22-46 and 48-51 to docket no. #85 . Along with this filing, the filing parties must explain the reasoning for each of their redactions. If the parties fail to file documents that comply with this order by that date, the documents will be unsealed in their entirety. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/29/14. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ULTRATEC, INC. and CAPTEL, INC.,
ORDER
Plaintiffs,
13-cv-346-bbc
v.
SORENSON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
and CAPTIONCALL, LLC,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Defendants Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC filed a motion for
summary judgment, accompanied by declarations, exhibits and other documents under seal.
Defendants then filed a notice that they would not be filing redacted, unsealed versions of
some of these documents on the ground that the documents were produced by plaintiffs
Ultratec, Inc. and Captel, Inc. Because filing another party’s documents is not a valid excuse
to ignore this court’s Administrative Order 311, on May 8, 2014, I ordered defendants to
give plaintiffs the opportunity to redact the documents, with refiling to be accomplished by
May 19, 2014. Dkt. #132. Defendants timely filed documents at docket no. 170. (Because
the exhibits to docket no. 170 track the ones at issue, it appears that this is defendants’
response to the May 8 order.

It is not possible to know this with certainty because

defendants did not include a cover letter or mention the May 8 order in their filing.)
After reviewing these submissions, I see that almost every document has been
1

redacted in its entirety or nearly so. In all likelihood, this violates the administrative order.
Administrative Order 311 (“Any document filed under seal must be accompanied by a
separately-filed, unsealed version that redacts only truly confidential information allowed by the
court’s prior order or supported in the party’s motion.”) (emphasis added).

Because

defendants did not submit a cover letter explaining their filing or redactions, it is impossible
to know why such extensive redactions were made and whether plaintiff or defendants are
responsible for the redactions. Thus, either plaintiffs or defendants must refile unsealed,
redacted documents of exhibits no. 1-20, 22-46 and 48-51 attached to the declaration of
Jessica Quon, dkt. #85. In addition, the filing parties must provide justification for each
redaction, explaining why the information is confidential and why the redaction fits the
parameters of the protective order. Dkt. ##40, 66-67. Should the parties fail to follow this
order, the documents will be unsealed. I assume that going forward the parties will file only
those redactions that comply with the protective and administrative orders and that it will
not be necessary to seek further explanations for their redactions.
Finally, I note that both parties have been failing to follow some of this court’s
Electronic

Filing

Procedures,

available

at

http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/electronic-

filing-procedures. In several instances, the parties have filed deposition transcripts and
expert reports as exhibits, rather than as separate docket entries, contrary to electronic filing
procedure VI.E and G. E.g., dkt. ##85, 179, 190. In addition, plaintiffs have filed redacted
exhibits without naming the exhibits at docket no. 124. Electronic filing procedure VI.D
provides that such exhibits must have a descriptive title. It is a burden on the Clerk of Court

2

when parties fail to follow this court’s procedures. The parties are advised to follow this
court’s electronic procedures. Any failure to do so will be considered should sanctions or
costs be sought in this case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that either plaintiffs Ultratec, Inc. and Captel, Inc. or defendants
Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, Inc. have until June 5, 2014 to file
unsealed, redacted copies of the documents filed as exhibits no. 1-20, 22-46 and 48-51 to
docket no. 85. Along with this filing, the filing parties must explain the reasoning for each
of their redactions. If the parties fail to file documents that comply with this order by that
date, the documents will be unsealed in their entirety.
Entered this 29th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3