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)

Download PDF
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

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?