Hinterdobler v. Fanuc America Corporation
- Edward Chen
- 3:25-cv-08001
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Peter Hinterdobler v. Fanuc America Corporation, Judge Chen denied Hinterdobler’s motion to redact information from a public-hearing transcript.
Peter Hinterdobler’s request to redact or seal information from a public-hearing transcript was denied; the court left open the possibility of a later request concerning more specific or sensitive medical information.
What happened
Peter Hinterdobler asked the court to redact medical information and his estimate of the case’s value from a transcript of a public hearing. The parties could not agree about the requested redactions.
The court said the information had already been disclosed publicly and that Hinterdobler had not shown good cause for sealing it. The medical information was described only in general terms, and the case valuation was not clearly protected work product.
Judge Edward M. Chen denied the motion to redact or seal and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 50. The court noted that the ruling did not prevent Hinterdobler from seeking to seal more specific or sensitive medical information later.
The detailed version
- Hinterdobler v. Fanuc America Corporation · No. 3:25-cv-08001
- Edward Chen
- Mar. 10, 2026
Background
Peter Hinterdobler moved to redact certain portions of a transcript from a public hearing. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about what, if anything, should be redacted or sealed, but they could not reach an agreement. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
Hinterdobler sought to seal two categories of information: medical information and what he called “work product.” The medical information disclosed at the hearing described an orthopedic injury, including an injury to at least his spine; an evaluation for a possible neurological injury; and his ability to return to work, though not in the same capacity. The “work product” information was Hinterdobler’s valuation of the case as potentially worth six or seven figures, depending on the injuries.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that sealing information attached to a non-dispositive motion requires good cause. It also observed that sealing was “somewhat of a moot point” because the information had already been disclosed during a public hearing.
As to the medical information, the court stated that putting a medical condition at issue does not automatically make all medical information public. But it found no good cause to seal the information disclosed here because the complaint already alleged that Hinterdobler had been struck by a robotic arm, thrown to the ground, and rendered unconscious, while the hearing disclosed only a general description of his condition.
As to the case valuation, the court said it was unclear whether the information qualified as attorney work product, which generally protects certain materials reflecting an attorney’s preparation or mental impressions. The court reasoned that the valuation concerned the damages demand and that damages calculations and supporting materials generally must be disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The court further stated that, even if the information reflected counsel’s mental impressions, voluntarily providing it in response to a court question would waive any otherwise applicable work-product protection.
Disposition
The court denied Hinterdobler’s motion to redact or seal. It stated that the ruling did not prevent him from seeking to seal more specific or sensitive medical information in the future. The order disposed of Docket No. 50.
Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order on March 10, 2026.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.