A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

In the past, I have been (rightfully) accused of promising to update the blog on further developments and then just forgetting about it.

Well naysayers, say nay no more.

I'm looking at you (insert pun)
I'm looking at you (insert pun) Daniel Bonilla, Unsplash

Today's post is an update on the frightening saga of redactions in Greenthread, LLC v. ON Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 23-443-RGA , D.I. 88 (D. Del. Apr. 30, 2024)(Oral Order), where you might recall Judge Andrews issued this ominous order in response to a party redacting exhibits in full:

At this point, I cannot find that Plaintiff has been operating in good faith. Thus, I will set a show cause hearing at which I will consider issuing a sanction of $10,000 to $100,000. Before I set a date for that hearing, I need two things: (1) Plaintiff has ten days to give the redactions on Exhs. B, F, G, H, and I one more try; and (2) I need Plaintiff to identify the lawyer who is responsible for the significant waste of my time dealing with this issue.


Since then the plaintiff filed a letter explaining its reasoning and requesting that the Court "reconsider whether it will hold a hearing to show cause or require Greenthread to publicly name an attorney involved in this issue." Id., D.I. 90 at 3.

In support, the plaintiff largely depended on the confidentiality clauses in the license agreements that comprised the exhibits:

Greenthread itself does not object to making public in their entirety the agreements referenced in the Court’s Oral orders, except as to banking information. However, each of the agreements contain contractual provisions requiring Greenthread to keep the agreements confidential. The agreements do not contain exceptions for partial disclosures and Greenthread is concerned that it could be sued by the counter parties to the agreements if it did not redact them in their entirety. Greenthread believes that fear and the declaration from its president attesting to the confidentiality of the agreements, D.I. 74, satisfied the Court’s requirement for “a compelling reason, supported by a statement under oath” for sealing a document in its entirety.

Id. at 1.

This was apparently sufficient to satisfy the Court as Judge Andrews issued an order cancelling the show cause hearing a few days later:

The Court appreciates the letter of May 2, 2024. I now accept that Plaintiff is operating in good faith. The show cause hearing is cancelled. Plaintiff still needs to file the ordered redacted versions, but need not otherwise comply with the April 30, 2024, Order

Id. at D.I. 91.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.


Similar Posts