A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Redactions

What's The Worst That Could Happen?

Nathan R. Hoeschen, April 13, 2023
Sealing Redactions

DALL·E 2023-04-13 15.54.57 - 35 MM photo of smiling dentist holding bloody wrench and giving thumbs up
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Motions for reargument are notoriously hard. Winning one is the legal equivalent of the going to the dentist and hearing that you really ought to take it easy and stop brushing so much.

Nevertheless, you see them filed all the time. I imagine the thinking is that, even if the odds are low, you've already lost the motion so things can't get any worse.

But they can!

Things can always get worse!

You could tell he was just trying to hold it in in the last photo
You could tell he was just trying to hold it in in the last photo AI-Generated, displayed with permission

This was the lesson in Carrum Techs., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., C.A. No. 18-1647 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2023). A couple of weeks ago, the defendant filed a motion to seal one of its briefs. The motion was short and unaccompanied by a declaration, so Judge Andrews denied it in a one-sentence Oral Order.

Now it's unclear why exactly the Defendant filed a motion to seal in this instance, as the parties had previously filed many documents under seal without a motion in accordance with CM/ECF procedures. The defendant thus moved for reargument on the motion to seal, largely arguing that it hadn't needed to file the motion in the first place:

Over the course of this litigation, various other pleadings have been filed under seal by agreement of the parties. Ford did not intend to request different treatment of its Memorandum and Exhibits than prior sealed filings in this litigation. Rather, Ford proceeded in a manner ...
View

Secrets, Secrets Are No Fun . . .

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 28, 2023
Sealing Redactions

It seems like only yesterday I was discussing the rare case where a third party moved to unseal the docket in a DE case. In fact, it was 12 days ago—time flies when blogging.

Time flying
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Well it happened again, and this time we have an opinion.

The intervenors in CBV, Inc. v. ChanBond, LLC, C.A. No. 21-1456 (D. Del. Mar 28, 2023) (Mem. Order) were shareholders in the defendant, Chanbond, who sought to unseal various and sundry filings including the complaint, answer, and briefing on a TRO. The parties (perhaps readers of the blog?) largely agreed to unseal the filings but insisted that the dollar amount of a confidential settlement agreement should remain redacted.

Typically, actual dollar amounts contained in confidential agreements are one of the few things that pass muster on a motion to seal. The twist was that the dollar amount had accidentally been filed publicly in a different case months earlier.

Billy tells secrets, it is his truest nature
Billy tells secrets, it is his truest nature AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Oops.

Nevertheless, the parties (as well as several third-party signatories to the agreement who submitted their own briefs) insisted that ...

View

The True Protagonist of Delaware's Redaction Saga

Nathan R. Hoeschen, March 16, 2023
Redactions

As Judge Connolly famously noted in his "star chamber" opinion, part of the reason over-redaction is a problem is that the parties themselves have no real incentive to challenge one another on the issue. It's akin to a tragedy of the commons scenario, but worse—the parties suffer no adverse consequences from the redactions at all, because they can see all of the filings, it is only the public at large that is left with questions.

This unfortunate equilibrium is disrupted, however, when a third party requests unsealing.

It Is I, an Interested Third Party!
It Is I, an Interested Third Party! AI-Generated, displayed with permission

That's exactly what happened this week in United States of America v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., C.A No. 19-2103-MN. For those who haven't been following this fascinating case, the CDC has various patents on an HIV prophylaxis regimen (known as PrEP in the biz), following years of research into the issue. Gilead markets two blockbuster PrEP drugs—Truvada and Descovy—which the government alleges infringe those patents. The Complaint is rife with allegations that Gilead has been gouging customers with its pricing for these allegedly infringing drugs. See D.I. 1 at 48-49 ("Another critical barrier to increasing access to PrEP in the United States has been
the cost of Truvada®, which presently is only sold by Gilead"; "Many AIDS activists and many in the medical community have criticized Truvada’s price in the United States, particularly in light of HHS’s patents, the Government’s funding of clinical research on PrEP, and the relatively low cost at which Gilead apparently makes the product").

TL;DR, the case is a big deal even to normies. So, it probably shouldn't have come as a huge surprise when ...

View

Judge Fallon Denies Discovery on Unlaunched, Abandoned, and Future Products—But Defendant Can't Redact That Information from Otherwise Responsive Docs

Andrew E. Russell, March 13, 2023
Document Production Accused Products

Abandoned
Cédric Dhaenens, Unsplash

Judge Fallon made an opinion public today that deals with whether a plaintiff can get discovery on unlaunched, abandoned, and future products in the lead up to a preliminary injunction hearing. The Court held that discovery on those products was not proportional to the needs of the case:

Zwift has shown that the document discovery requested by Wahoo is not proportional to the needs of the case at this stage of the proceedings. (D.I. 72) The complaint establishes that Wahoo was aware of Zwift’s unlaunched and abandoned hardware products, yet it did not raise these products in its motion for a preliminary injunction, indicating that the relevance of the requested discovery to the preliminary injunction inquiry …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Launches Nukes from Orbit, Unseals Most of Case's Docket, Sparking Emergency Motion to Stay

Andrew E. Russell, Feb. 27, 2023
Sealing Star Chamber

That smoking crater is all that's left of the patent assertion entity's effort to hide its identity.
That smoking crater is all that's left of the patent assertion entity's effort to hide its identity. AI-Generated

We've talked before about how the free ride on sealed filings is starting to end. Late last week, we got another reminder of that from Chief Judge Connolly.

In WSOU Investments, LLC v. SalesForce, Inc., C.A. No. 23-27-CFC (D. Del. Feb. 23, 2023), one of the parties filed a "motion for leave to file under seal" some of its briefing, exhibits, and—notably—its Rule 7.1 statement.

The case is a small miscellaneous action seeking to compel discovery relating to a W.D. Tex. patent action.

In response to the motion for leave to file under seal, Chief Judge Connolly elected to review all sealed filings on the docket. He went so far as to follow up with the judge in the underlying W.D. Texas action:

WSOU's motion for leave to file under seal prompted me to review all the filings the parties have maintained under seal to date.
I started with the parties' briefs (D.I. 3; D.I. 16; D.I. 20); and, because the parties justified the sealing of those briefs in part because the briefs quote from a sealed discovery hearing conducted by Judge Gilliland in the Western District of Texas, I shared copies of the briefs with Judge Gilliland to get his views on the appropriateness of maintaining the briefs under seal. I determined, and Judge Gilliland agreed, that no good cause exists ...
View

The Last Bastion of Sealed Filings

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Jan. 8, 2023
Sealing Redactions

Interior. Daytime. Camera zooms in on a series of bound documents lazing on a judge's desk.

Narrator: At one time, this courthouse would have been full of sealed filings. Flitting about through the hallways, their quiet calls echoing to one another as they played amongst the corridors.

[Music turns more somber, two smaller briefs seem to cling to a larger one with "DENIED" written in large red letters on the cover. despite their plaintiff cries, the larger brief does not stir]

I know, it's a pretty rough pun.
Karlheinz Eckhardt, Unsplash

Narrator: (continuing) Following years of habitat destruction, however, these beasts—once as common as pigeons or garden slugs—are on the verge of extinction.

[Music swells, as camera focuses on sealed papers being seemingly fed into a furnace; then we turn to a verdant valley where things seem brighter, ink flows in a peaceful stream and a jaunty fiddle tune takes over]

Narrator: But one hidden nook remains, untouched by the changes of recent years where a sealed filing can expect to live a long life in the the quiet secrecy that is its true home. That ancestral home is ...

View

Judge Andrews Orders Party to Identify Lawyer Responsible for Frivolous Motion, So They Can Explain Why They Thought the Motion was Justified

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 19, 2022
Sealing Sanctions

Google apparently indexed its allegedly confidential information on its own search engine.
Google apparently indexed its allegedly confidential information on its own search engine. Pawel Czerwinski, Unsplash

Whew, this is another one that falls in the "I'm glad I'm not involved in that" bucket (some previous entries here and here).

On Friday, Judge Andrews rejected a frivolous motion to seal, after he found some of the supposedly-sensitive information as a top result on Google:

This is about as frivolous a motion to seal as I have seen. Defendants submitted a declaration of Phil Harnish in support of their motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The motion is based on the purported need to avoid disclosing “sensitive personal information about employees that, if revealed, would …
View

A New Wrinkle in Redaction Practice

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Dec. 4, 2022
Redactions

REDACTED PAGE
Jeff Castellano

The IP/DE lore on redaction practice now extends to many volumes. To summarize for the more casual reader, in the long, long ago (2019-ish) redacting documents was more or less a free for all. Mid 2020 saw Judge Connolly and Judge Andrews begin to challenge the practice of over-redaction ultimately culminating with Judge Andrews to essentially banning the redaction of documents in their entirety in 2021. Recently, this has been extended to capture cases where the vast majority of the document is redacted as well.

Judge Williams seems to have added yet another wrinkle to the practice in an aside in Victaulic Company v. ASC Engineered Solutions, LLC, C.A. No. 20-887-GBW (D. Del. Nov. 30, 2022) (Mem. Order). The opinion itself dealt with old-style IPR estoppel (and is interesting in its own right), but closed with the following note:

Additionally, D.I. 196-1 , D.I. 220, and D.I. 222 were filed under seal, but the Court cannot find any substantive redactions in those documents. See D.I. 209-1 ; D.I. 240; D.I. 241. The Court will unseal those documents within seven (7) days unless either party objects. The
Court requests that parties not burden the Court with the unnecessary sealing of documents, such as publicly available documents, see, e. g. , D.I. 2 41 , Ex . A. 4

Id. at 7.

I had to read this passage a couple of times before ...

View

Signs of Further Restrictions on Redactions

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Nov. 17, 2022
Redactions

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Judge Andrews' policy of rejecting filings that redact exhibits in their entirety is well known to our readers. Judge Andrews has been persistent in the practice over the past year or so, issuing quite a few orders substantively identical to the below:

The redacted filings (D.I. 40 ) is REJECTED because parts of it are redacted in its entirety. Absent a compelling reason, supported by a statement under oath by a party, redactions in their entirety are impermissible; redactions must be done so as to redact the least possible amount of the materials submitted. Failure to make a good faith attempt at such redactions may result in sanctions, the most common of which would be simply …
View

Redact, Don't Do It

Nathan R. Hoeschen, Sept. 27, 2022
Redactions

Why did they play this song at my prom? I am not that old, and it is surprisingly hard to dance to
Honey Fangs, Unsplash

For the past year or so, we've been tracking Judge Andrews' new practice of rejecting filings that redact exhibits in their entirety with a docket entry like the below:

The redacted filings (D.I. 453 , 454 , and 458 ) are REJECTED because parts of them are redacted in their entirety. Absent a compelling reason, supported by a statement under oath by a party, redactions in their entirety are impermissible; redactions must be done so as to redact the least possible amount of the materials submitted. Failure to make a good faith attempt at such redactions may result in sanctions, the most common of which would be simply unsealing the entire filing. Redacting in its entirety …
View
Newer
Older

Archive