Long-time readers can maybe skip this post, as we've discussed this issue before.
But I thought it was worth a post, because it's still something that comes up from time to time. But the court's rulings are clear: You can't redact information from document production just because you think it is irrelevant. You have to produce the documents without redactions.
This came up again this week, this time before visiting judge Murphy. Consistent with our other judges, he rejected the idea of permitting redactions of irrelevant material:
Defendants’ motion to modify the stipulated protective order (DI 52) is DENIED. . . . Defendants were unable to identify any occasion where a district court allowed redactions for relevance over the opposing party’s objections. Defendants outlined several practical reasons why it might make sense to adopt the proposal — and those concerns are probably why sometimes parties agree to do so. But there are countervailing practical considerations as well, and defendants did not show adequate good cause to overcome the presumption that documents will be produced as they were stored.
Corteva Agriscience LLC v. Inari Agriculture, Inc., C.A. No. 23-1059, at 1 (D. Del. May 20, 2024).
That's pretty clear, and consistent with other precedent from the Court. So far, to my knowledge, the Court has consistently held that parties can only redact for privilege, not relevancy. If counsel were readers of the blog, maybe they could have saved themselves some time!
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
