Hutchinson Technology Incorporated v. Suncall Corporation
- Susan Nelson
- 0:21-cv-02618
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Hutchinson Technology v. Suncall, Judge Micko granted in part and denied in part a motion to redact a hearing transcript, ordering permanent sealing and a public redacted version.
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated and Suncall Corporation; the court reporter was directed to file the redacted public transcript.
What happened
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated v. Suncall Corporation concerned Hutchinson Technology’s request to redact parts of a corrected transcript of a discovery hearing. Suncall opposed some of the proposed redactions.
The court concluded that the public could see references to Nitto and the existence of a settlement agreement, as well as general discussions of an agreement with Western Digital and descriptions in Hutchinson Technology’s privilege log. The court found that specific contents of the agreements and certain agreement language should remain nonpublic.
Judge Douglas L. Micko granted in part and denied in part Hutchinson Technology’s amended motion. He ordered the corrected transcript permanently sealed and directed the court reporter to file a new public version with specified redactions.
The detailed version
- Hutchinson Technology Incorporated v. Suncall Corporation · No. 0:21-cv-02618
- Susan Nelson
- June 12, 2024
Background
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated (HTI) asked the court to redact portions of a corrected transcript from a September 27, 2023 hearing on Suncall Corporation’s discovery motion. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Suncall’s motion to compel discovery. HTI later filed an amended motion identifying the parties’ disagreements about transcript redactions.
The court explained that hearing transcripts are judicial records and generally carry a presumption of public access. It considered whether the proposed redactions protected confidential information without unnecessarily restricting public access.
Rulings on the Proposed Redactions
The court held that references to Nitto and the existence of a settlement agreement with Nitto did not reveal the type of confidential information warranting redaction. It granted HTI’s requests to redact portions discussing the contents of that agreement, including page 28 at lines 4 and 6–23, but denied the requests for the other listed references to Nitto.
For the Supply Assurance Agreement between HTI and Western Digital, the court granted in part and denied in part HTI’s request. General discussion of the agreement’s existence, counsel’s opinions, the dates of agreement versions, and general questions from the court did not require redaction. The court ordered redaction of references to specific sections or subsections, what those provisions might have triggered, and language taken from or paraphrasing the agreement. It granted redactions for the portions listed at pages 5, 6, 7, 20, 21, and 22, and denied the other listed requests concerning that agreement.
The court denied HTI’s request to redact descriptions from its privilege log. It found that the descriptions adequately protected the underlying privileged information and that general references to entities involved in patent development, legal advice, and anticipated litigation did not warrant sealing.
Order
The court ordered that HTI’s amended motion for transcript redactions was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It ordered the September 27, 2023 corrected hearing transcript permanently sealed. It directed the court reporter to file a new public version with redactions at the page and line ranges specified in the order, including portions discussing the Western Digital agreement and the Nitto settlement agreement.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.