Sorin Group USA, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:14-cv-04023
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 9
In Sorin Group USA v. St. Jude Medical, Chief Judge Tunheim denied a non-party’s motion to unseal deposition transcripts because confidentiality interests outweighed public access.
William Plourde and Freda Merill could not unseal the five deposition transcripts through this motion. Sorin Group USA, Inc.’s objection to disclosure prevailed, while the order left open the possibility of obtaining evidence through ordinary discovery in the separate Massachusetts case.
What happened
Sorin Group USA, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. arose from Sorin’s lawsuit claiming that St. Jude improperly induced two former Sorin sales executives to leave. A jury found for St. Jude, and Sorin’s appeal was dismissed. William Plourde and Freda Merill, who were not parties to that case, asked the court to unseal five deposition transcripts involving Sorin employees.
Plourde argued that the transcripts could show Sorin knew about problems with its Mitroflow heart valve but failed to report them properly to the Food and Drug Administration. Sorin opposed the request. The court said the depositions were not used at trial, in post-trial motions, or on appeal, and therefore were not judicial records that played an important role in deciding the case. The court also said that, even if they were judicial records, the public-access interest was weak while Sorin’s confidentiality and potential prejudice interests favored keeping them sealed.
Chief Judge John R. Tunheim denied William Plourde and Freda Merill’s motion to lift the seal. The court noted that the denial did not prevent Plourde from seeking the evidence through ordinary discovery in his separate case against Sorin.
The detailed version
- Sorin Group USA, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. · No. 0:14-cv-04023
- John Tunheim
- May 14, 2019
Background
Sorin sued St. Jude over claims arising from St. Jude’s employment of two former Sorin sales executives. Sorin alleged tortious interference with contract, inducing or aiding and abetting breaches of legal duties, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. St. Jude argued that the employees left because of negative publicity concerning Sorin’s Mitroflow heart valve and Sorin’s response to that publicity, rather than because St. Jude wrongfully induced them to leave. A jury found for St. Jude, and Sorin’s post-trial appeal was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit.
William Plourde, together with Freda Merill, was a non-party who brought a separate case against Sorin in the District of Massachusetts. Plourde alleged there that Sorin under-reported or misrepresented Mitroflow product failures to the Food and Drug Administration. He moved to unseal five deposition transcripts filed under a protective order: transcripts of Brett Butcher, Patricia L. Carr, Spencer Seibert, and Scott McCormick. The transcripts involved four former Sorin employees and one current Sorin employee.
Legal standards
The court explained that a non-party seeking access to judicial records in a civil case ordinarily must use permissive intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). The Eighth Circuit relaxes some requirements when the person seeks intervention only to unseal records or modify a protective order. The court also explained that judicial records generally include documents relevant to and integrally involved in resolving a case.
There is a common-law right of public access to judicial records, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance the value of public access against the interests supporting confidentiality. The court considered six factors: the need for public access; prior public access; objections to disclosure; property and privacy interests; possible prejudice from disclosure; and the purpose for which the documents were introduced in the proceedings.
Analysis
The court first held that Plourde had not used the required procedure because he had not moved to intervene under Rule 24(b). The court further held that, even if he had made a proper intervention motion, it would be denied because the common-interest requirement was not satisfied.
The court determined that the deposition testimony was not a judicial record because it was not introduced into evidence or discussed in open court before the jury, and it did not play an integral role in deciding the Minnesota case. The court stated that the transcripts were not offered at trial, in post-trial motions, or in the appeal.
The court alternatively concluded that the balance of interests favored maintaining the seal. Because the depositions had not contributed to the court’s decision, the presumption of public access was low. Plourde sought the transcripts to find evidence and develop a litigation strategy for his separate case, not to evaluate the fairness or reasonableness of the Minnesota proceedings. The court found the need for public access slight, treated the prior-access factor as neutral, and found that the remaining factors favored protection.
In particular, Sorin objected to disclosure and had privacy interests connected to the relationship between the company and its employees. The court found Sorin had persuasively shown possible prejudice because the testimony was taken to understand employee state of mind in the employment dispute, not to determine whether Mitroflow was defective. Sorin therefore had not had an opportunity to test the employees’ statements about the product’s alleged defects. The court also found that the purpose of introduction in the proceedings favored protection because the transcripts were not introduced in the Minnesota case.
Disposition
The court denied William Plourde and Freda Merill’s Motion to Lift the Seal of Deposition Transcripts. The court noted that the denial did not foreclose Plourde from seeking the evidence: he could still access the sales executives and depose them through ordinary discovery procedures in his Massachusetts case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.