Opinion
Case Nos. 5:98-cv-2876, 1:01-cv-1078.
January 11, 2005
ORDER
On July 2, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation to this Court in connection with Telxon Corporation's ("Telxon") and Class Plaintiffs' respective motions for sanctions against Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP ("PwC"). The Magistrate Judge then issued an Amended Report and Recommendation ("RR") on July 16, 2004, which corrected erroneous date references and typographical errors. Based on PwC's argument that the RR revealed proprietary and/or trade secret information relative to its electronic databases, and out of an abundance of caution, the RR was placed under seal.
Telxon, as a third-party plaintiff, filed a motion for sanctions against third-party defendant PwC (Case No. 5:98cv2876 — Doc. 288). Class Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against PwC in their direct action against PwC (Case No. 1:01cv1078 — Doc. 150)
Following extensive briefing in connection with PwC's objections to the RR, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on December 9 and 10, 2004 that, without objection by any of the parties, was open to the public. PwC, Telxon and Class Plaintiffs presented substantial documentary and testimonial evidence at the hearing, much of which included significant details about PwC's electronic databases. The parties returned on January 4, 2005 to present closing arguments.
At the end of his closing argument, counsel for Class Plaintiffs orally moved the Court to return the RR to the public docket. In sum, Class Plaintiffs (and Telxon) reiterated arguments they had made to the Magistrate Judge in opposition to PwC's prior motion to seal the RR; namely, that:
1) PwC has not adequately identified any materials in the electronic databases worthy of trade secret protection;
2) even if it had identified proprietary information, the RR's references to PwC's electronic databases are not so significant as to disclose any alleged trade secrets contained within the databases;
3) PwC has not protected its purported trade secrets, as evidenced by its unrestricted, voluntary disclosure of its databases to a competitor, Deloitte Touche, during the due diligence phase of Symbol Technologies's potential acquisition of Telxon; and
4) any arguably proprietary details about the databases that were disclosed in the RR were openly and publicly discussed at the December 9-10, 2004 hearing without any request that those proceedings be closed, or the transcript sealed.
Class Plaintiffs and Telxon argue, therefore, that the RR should be unsealed. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Courts is hereby ORDERED to return the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation(in its original and amended form — dated July 2, 2004 and July 16, 2004, respectively) to the public docket.