Summary
granting motion to seal portion of trial transcript containing confidential technological information
Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. United Rentals (N. Am.), Inc.Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-1417, Section "N"
November 20, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Shell Exploration and Production Company's ("Shell"), Motion to Seal Record. On June 12 and 25, 2001, the Court held hearings on Shell's motion for preliminary injunction. This action involves the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets in certain computer-assisted design programs owned by Shell. During the hearing, the Court heard testimony concerning Shell's trade secrets. Andy Egnew, a Shell employee, testified about Shell's proprietary programs and trade secrets. On November 5, 2001, Shell seeks to have the transcripts of the hearing sealed "to prevent non-parties to this litigation from gaining access to this confidential and privileged information concerning Shell's New Generation Technology." Although the hearing took place in June, the testimony was not transcribed and filed in the record until July.
Plaintiff's Motion at 2.
The defendant, Eric Callis ("Callis") opposes Shell's motion to seal the record. Callis alleges that Shell bears the burden of showing that any information in the transcript is a trade secret and that confidentiality has not been waived. Shell points to the protective order ¶ 3.1 which states
Whenever a party objects to the designation of any material as Confidential Information, it may apply to the Court for a hearing to determine whether the particular material is of a confidential or proprietary nature such that the imposition of limitations upon dissemination is appropriate. The burden shall be on the person challenging the designation to show that the material so designated is not the appropriate subject of the limitation set forth in this order. Until this Court enters an order changing or disallowing the designation, the material shall be treated as Confidential Information and protected accordingly.
Pursuant to the protective order agreed to by the parties, Callis has the burden of showing that the transcripts should not be sealed. Callis argues that Egnew's testimony at the hearing did not disclose "the particulars of any of Shell's trade secrets." Shell agrees that the testimony, taken alone, "would not be particularly illuminating." However, Shell filed the motion to seal the transcripts of Egnew's testimony "out of an abundance of caution . . . to prevent any inadvertent disclosure and . . . foreclose any type of later argument stemming from the transcript." In addition, Callis asserts that Shell has waived any confidentiality it may have possessed "by failing to designate the testimony as confidential at the hearing in accordance with the agreed confidentiality order" and "by allowing the transcript of the preliminary injunction hearing to remain in the public domain for several months without asserting confidentiality."
Defendant's Memorandum at 1.
Plaintiff's Reply at 4.
Id.
Id. at 1-2.
In determining whether to disclose or seal a judicial record, the Court must balance the public's common law right of access against the interests favoring non-disclosure. S.E.C. v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). "Public access [to judicial records] serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness." Id. at 849 citing Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 682 (3d Cir. 1988). While the transcripts have been in the record for four months, the Court does not find that this time period constitutes a waiver of confidentiality. The publication in existence in this case is distinguishable from that which existed in Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 980 F. Supp. 1362 (E.D.Va. 1995) (holding that information which has been in the record for over two years could not be considered confidential). Callis points out that the Court found that the majority of Egnew's testimony did not specify any particular trade secret. Callis does not, however, set forth any reasons why public access should outweigh non-disclosure. Shell seeks to have Egnew's testimony sealed out of an abundance of caution in order to protect its trade secrets. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Seal that portion of the transcript containing Egnew's testimony is GRANTED.