Mitsugi v. Jung

Background

Petitioner Robert Ryuichi Mitsugi, through counsel, filed a letter motion asking the court to redact testimony by Respondent Eunji Jung from pages 13:6–14:2 of a transcript of a November 30, 2022 telephone conference. Mitsugi said Jung’s statements made allegations that could adversely affect the court proceedings and the parties’ ongoing legal dispute in Japan. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e)(1), which allows a court, for good cause, to require redaction of additional information.

Mitsugi submitted proposed redactions and stated that he would file both a highlighted version and an unredacted version of the transcript under seal.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the application. It stated that the requested statements were made in a public forum and were substantially alluded to in other public filings in the case. The court also determined that the transcript of the initial pretrial conference was a judicial document—a court record subject to the presumption of public access.

The court concluded that Mitsugi had not provided an adequate basis to overcome that presumption. The court cited decisions recognizing that information made public generally cannot later be made private again and describing filed conference transcripts as judicial documents.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the application be denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket 38 and to unseal the documents at Docket Nos. 36 and 39.