Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:16-cv-07907
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Media Glow Digital v. Panasonic, Judge Gardephe ordered certain third-party documents unsealed and required Panasonic to remove redactions from its brief.
Panasonic, the third parties that produced the documents under confidentiality designations, the other parties, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Media Glow Digital Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic had filed a supplemental trial brief and exhibits under seal. Panasonic later said the parties did not believe most of the materials met the legal standard for sealing, but asked to keep several third-party documents sealed because they had been produced under confidentiality designations.
The court notified the parties and affected third parties that it intended to unseal the materials and gave third parties a deadline to object. No third party objected by that deadline. The court therefore directed that the specified documents be made publicly viewable.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe also ordered Panasonic to file an amended supplemental brief by June 4, 2021, with the redactions removed. This order addressed access to sealed court materials, not the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America · No. 1:16-cv-07907
- Paul Gardephe
- June 2, 2021
Background
On March 19, 2021, Panasonic filed a supplemental pretrial brief and specified exhibits under seal. After the court directed the parties to address sealing, Panasonic stated that the parties did not believe the exhibits satisfied the standard for sealing established by the cited precedent. Panasonic nevertheless asked the court to keep certain exhibits and related redactions sealed because the materials had been produced by third parties under confidentiality designations in the protective order governing the case.
Unsealing process
On April 14, 2021, the court stated that it intended to unseal all material then under seal and directed the Clerk of Court to unseal everything except the specified third-party documents. The court required the parties to notify any third party that had provided documents under a confidentiality agreement and give that third party a copy of the order. Third parties were given until April 21, 2021, to challenge unsealing.
Ruling
No third party submitted an objection. The court therefore ordered that the third-party documents be unsealed. It directed the Clerk to make Docket Nos. 299, 300, 301, 302, 310, and 314 publicly viewable. The court also directed Panasonic to file an amended copy of its supplemental brief by June 4, 2021, removing all redactions. The order concerns sealing and public access to court materials; it does not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.