Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America

Background

Panasonic filed a supplemental pretrial brief and a declaration with exhibits under seal. The sealed materials included agreements between parties, emails, deposition excerpts, a letter of intent, a purchase agreement and amendment, excerpts from a hearing on motions in limine, and another email. Two dictionary excerpts were filed publicly.

The Court previously directed Panasonic to submit a motion to seal under the Court’s Individual Rules. Panasonic’s motion stated that the parties did not believe the exhibits satisfied the sealing standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Panasonic nevertheless asked to keep certain documents and two redacted portions of its supplemental brief under seal because the materials had been produced by third parties with confidentiality designations under the case’s protective order.

Sealing standard

The Court held that documents produced by third parties must satisfy the same standard for sealing that applies to other documents exchanged during discovery. It also stated that a confidentiality designation under a protective order does not eliminate the need to satisfy the applicable sealing standard.

Ruling

The Court stated that it intended to unseal all material then under seal. It directed the parties to promptly notify any third party that had provided documents under a confidentiality agreement and to give that third party a copy of the order. A third party wishing to challenge unsealing had to submit a filing by April 21, 2021. Without such a filing, all currently sealed material would be unsealed.

The Clerk was directed to change the viewing level to public for the specified docket entries. Panasonic was directed to file, by April 15, 2021, an amended supplemental brief removing the redaction on page 22 that quoted Exhibit 20. The opinion does not expressly use the word “denied” for Panasonic’s motion to seal.