Nouis Technologies, Inc. v. Polaris Industries Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER denying 101 Motion for Leave from Requirements of Administrative Order 311 re 92 Brief in Reply, 93 Declaration, and 98 Exhibit. Plaintiff has three days to comply with Administrative Order 311 by filing redacted public versions of Dkt. 92 and Dkt. 93 . Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 10/13/2015. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

NOUIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

14-cv-233-jdp

POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Nouis Technologies, Inc., has moved for relief from this court’s standing
Administrative Order 311. That order requires a party to file a redacted, public version of any
document filed under seal. Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. 101, will be denied.
The purpose of Administrative Order 311 is to ensure that the court’s work is
conducted in public, and that only material that must be kept confidential is withheld from
public disclosure. The order applies to patent cases. Indeed, the order is particularly
important in patent cases where the routine sealing of filed documents would prevent the
public from understanding the basis for the court’s rulings.
Plaintiff’s motion concerns Dkt. 92, its reply brief in support of its motion to compel,
and Dkt. 93, a supporting declaration that attaches two deposition transcripts. Plaintiff
contends that redacting the “truly confidential” portions would not leave anything that
makes sense. The court is not persuaded. The reply brief cites the deposition transcripts, but
it is hard to see how the very short quotations from the depositions would require significant,
or even any, redactions to the brief. The declaration itself contains nothing confidential. The
deposition transcripts might well contain some confidential information (the court has not
reviewed them entirely), although they also contain much that is not.

Plaintiff has three days to comply with Administrative Order 311 by filing redacted
public versions of Dkt. 92 and Dkt. 93.
Entered October 13, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2