ARP Wave, LLC v. Salpeter

Background

ARP Wave, LLC moved to redact and keep sealed approximately 59 pages, in whole or in part, of a 156-page transcript from a July 10, 2020 hearing. The hearing addressed the parties’ motions for summary judgment and the defendants’ motion for sanctions under Rule 11. ARP Wave’s stated basis was that the transcript contained information designated confidential under the case’s protective order.

The defendants opposed the request. They relied on the strong presumption that court records should be publicly accessible and cited examples of requested redactions, including portions of Judge Patrick J. Schiltz’s questioning, a reference to a college hockey injury, and information they argued could not qualify as a protected trade secret because of public disclosures in a patent.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a common-law right of public access. That right is not absolute, but sealing requires balancing the public’s interest in observing and evaluating court proceedings against the interests supporting confidentiality. The court stated that only compelling reasons can justify withholding judicial records.

The court found that the presumption of access was especially strong here. The transcript reflected information presented for consideration in deciding dispositive motions and included Judge Schiltz’s thoughts and inquiries about the merits of the claims. The court therefore treated the transcript as a judicial record central to the exercise of the court’s authority.

The court held that a discovery protective order did not automatically justify sealing information later considered in adjudicating the merits. It also reviewed the requested excerpts and found that they primarily concerned whether the inner workings of the RX100, protocols, marketing materials, seminars, and agreements were protectable trade secrets. The court noted that Judge Schiltz had dismissed those trade-secret claims in his summary-judgment order and concluded that the asserted property and privacy interests were weak. The opinion also noted that the record did not indicate that ARP Wave had sought to close the hearing before or during the hearing.

Disposition

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright denied ARP Wave’s Motion to Redact Transcript. The order directed that Docket Entry 277 be unsealed in accordance with the local rules within 14 days, unless a timely objection was filed. It also required the parties to file a joint motion by February 19, 2021, addressing continued sealing of the entries related to the summary-judgment motions and the Rule 11 sanctions motion.