Opinion
Case No. 4:05CV1529 RWS.
February 13, 2006
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on the parties' Joint Motion for Redaction of Hearing Transcripts [#65]. The parties claim that the hearing transcripts "contain certain sensitive personal information . . . as well as confidential and sensitive business information, which would be subject to protection under Rule 26(c)(7) . . ." No other legal argument is advanced in favor of redacting the transcripts.
"[T] he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 598, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). "[T]he right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute." Id. at 598; Unitied States v. Webbe, 791 F.2d 103, 106 (8th Cir. 1986). It is the task of the district courts to balance the public's right to inspect copies of judicial records against the needs of the parties. Webbe, 791 F.2d at 106.
Additionally, Rule 26(c)(7) allows for the protection of such materials as trade secrets and confidential research. I have reviewed the transcripts. Based on my review, it is not clear which, if any, of the provisions of Rule 26(c)(7) the parties are relying on to make the instant request.
Before I rule on the motion, I will allow the parties to submit supplemental briefs detailing why each paragraph at issue should be redacted based on Rule 26(c)(7) or why the need for redaction outweighs the public's right to review judicial records as stated in Nixon andWebbe.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall submit supplemental briefs in accordance with this Memorandum and Order no later than fourteen days from the date of this Order.