Hutchinson Technology Incorporated v. Suncall Corporation

Background

During discovery, the parties filed competing motions to compel and argued them at a December 8, 2023 hearing. After a transcript was filed, Hutchinson Technology timely notified the court that it intended to seek redactions. Its motion asked the court to resolve the parties’ disagreement about some proposed redactions.

Legal standard

The court explained that hearing transcripts are judicial records and generally are presumed available to the public. Courts may restrict access to confidential information, including personal identifiers and information that should remain non-public. The court considered the public’s general right to inspect judicial records and the parties’ asserted privacy and business interests.

Analysis

The parties generally agreed that the following transcript portions should be sealed: page 45, lines 8–10; page 45, line 19; page 54, lines 6–17; page 58, lines 1–3; and page 58, lines 5–9. The court agreed and ordered those portions sealed.

The parties disagreed about page 47, lines 1–6. Hutchinson Technology’s counsel discussed estimates concerning the products and product versions Hutchinson Technology had developed and the related patents it had held during a specific period. Hutchinson Technology argued that this was confidential business information that could reveal its patent strategy to a competitor. Suncall argued that the information was not confidential business information and was already publicly available, at least in part.

The court found that the discussion was speculative and did not disclose confidential business strategies that could benefit a competitor. The court also took judicial notice of the hundreds of publicly available patents concerning Hutchinson Technology. It concluded that redacting information already available to the public served no purpose and denied the requested redactions for page 47, lines 1–6.

Order

The court ordered that Hutchinson Technology’s Motion Regarding Transcript Redactions was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It ordered the December 8, 2023 hearing transcript permanently sealed and directed the court reporter to file a redacted public version. The public version must redact page 45, lines 8–10; page 45, line 19; page 54, lines 6–17; page 58, lines 1–3; and page 58, lines 5–9.