Opinion
Civil No. 99-1035 RHK/FLN
February 14, 2003.
ORDER
Before the Court is Medtronic's Motion to Unseal a Select Portion of the August 8, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and Order ("August 8 Order") filed in this matter. The parties have submitted briefs in support of and in opposition to the motion. For the reasons set forth below the Court will deny the motion.
On December 20, 1999, this Court filed a Protective Order to maintain the confidentiality of non-public and/or proprietary information, including but not limited to information that constitutes trade secrets, know-how, and business, financial or commercial information which, if disclosed, could harm a party's competitive position. Pursuant to the Protective Order, the Court filed under seal certain memorandum opinions and orders. One of those, dated August 8, 2002, resolved the parties' pre-trial motions in limine, including a motion regarding the admissibility of certain lay opinion testimony. The Court filed the August 8 Order under seal because it quoted from documents marked "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" under the Protective Order and set forth information within the Protective Order's scope.
The above-captioned matter was tried before the undersigned in September 2002. The parties reached a settlement before the case was submitted to the jury.
Medtronic moves to unseal nine pages of the August 8 Order that pertain to the motion in limine about lay opinion testimony. Medtronic contends that a similar issue has arisen in another lawsuit and the federal district judge before whom that matter is pending might benefit from the guidance of this Court's ruling. Medtronic proposes to redact several lines on page 50 that it acknowledges could be regarded as containing confidential information.
Medtronic sought to reach a stipulation with Defendants about unsealing part of the August 8, 2002 Order. The Defendants declined to enter into such a stipulation. (Mot. to Unseal Select Portion of Aug. 8, 2002 Order, Ex. C.)
"[W]hen a District Court enters a Protective Order, it has, at least implicitly, recognized that unrestricted disclosure of the protected materials could `unduly harm' the parties who are subject to the terms of that Order." Cordis Corp. v. SciMed Life Systems, Inc., 177 F.R.D. 651, 654 (D.Minn. 1997) (Erickson, Mag. J.) (citing Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Bagley, 601 F.2d 949, 954 (8th Cir. 1979)). A district court has the power and the discretion to lift or modify a protective order. Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d 222, 231 (2nd Cir. 2001). Where a party or deponent has reasonably relied on a protective order granted under Rule 26(c), the district court should not modify it "absent a showing of improvidence in the grant of [the] order or some extraordinary circumstance or compelling need." Id. at 229. The party seeking to modify a protective order bears the burden of showing good cause for the modification. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Synthon Pharms., Ltd., 210 F.R.D. 163, 166 (M.D.N.C. 2002).
Medtronic has failed to meet its burden of establishing good cause for unsealing portions of the August 8 Order. That this Court's analysis of the admissibility of certain testimony might assist another district court constitutes neither an extraordinary circumstance nor a compelling need. The Court's fact-specific analysis can, at most, be persuasive to another district court. Without modification of the Protective Order, Medtronic is free to argue that cases cited at pages 47 through 53 of the August 8 Order, as applied to the facts in Medtronic's other litigation, compels a certain result. Medtronic's "need" for portions of the August 8 Order is not great. Furthermore, it is "presumptively unfair for courts to modify protective orders which assure confidentiality and upon which the parties have reasonably relied." TheStreet.com, 273 F.3d at 230. The parties presently rely on the confidentiality afforded by the Protective Order, confidentiality that has been expressly extended beyond the parties' litigation through their Settlement Agreement.
Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Medtronic's Motion to Unseal Select Portions of the August 8, 2002 Order (Doc. No. 316) is DENIED.