Opinion
17-2060-DDC-KGG
08-17-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. THOMAS SCHROEDER, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., COVIDIEN, L.P., HUTCHINSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and WICHITA RADIOLOGICAL GROUP, P.A., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge
Before the court is a Motion to Redact (Doc. 370). Defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Covidien L.P (collectively, “Medtronic”) move the court to redact portions of an exhibit. Defendants filed the exhibit, already redacted, in support of Medtronic's Motion to Strike False Allegations Under Rule 12(f) and for Other Miscellaneous Relief (“Motion to Strike,” Doc. 366). D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2 governs motions to seal and redact and a “party seeking to file court records under seal must overcome a presumption, long supported by courts, that the public has a common-law right of access to judicial records.” Luo v. Wang, 71 F.4th 1289, 1304 (10th Cir. 2023); see also D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2. Despite defendants' failure to follow precisely the procedure proscribed by D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2, the court credits defendants' good-faith effort and grants defendants' Motion to Redact (Doc. 370) for the reasons explained below. The court also instructs defendants to email a clean, unredacted version of the Declaration of Alethea M. Huyser to: KSDCrabtreeChambers@ksd.uscourts.gov.
Procedurally, D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2 envisions that a party, first, will file a document provisionally under seal; immediately after, file a notice of the proposed sealed record; and, finally, file a motion to “allow the document to be filed in the public record with redactions.” D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(a)-(c). Here, defendants pre-emptively filed the redacted exhibit in the public record (Doc. 367-1). Defendants should have filed the entirety of the “Motion to Strike” (Doc. 366) provisionally under seal and awaited the court's order before publicly filing the redacted exhibit. Nonetheless, the court accepts the redacted version as filed. After receiving the requested, unredacted version, chambers will have the clerk's office file the unredacted version under seal, thus maintaining a complete record.
Substantively, D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c) requires that a motion to seal or redact include a “description of the specific portions” and that the movant “narrowly tailor[]” the request “to [an] asserted confidentiality interest.” The motion also must identify the “confidentiality interest to be protected” and the potential “injury that would result in the absence of restricting public access.” D. Kan. Rule 5.4.2(c)(2)-(3). Finally, the movants should explain “why no lesser alternative is practicable” and indicate whether “the motion is opposed or unopposed.” D. Kan.Rule 5.4.2(c)(4)-(5).
Defendants seek to redact “two tables in paragraph 24 of the Declaration of Alethea M. Huyser.” Doc. 370 at 2. Defendants do “not seek to file the entire Declaration under seal,” but narrowly tailor the request to include only the two tables that reveal “business sensitive sales data.” Id. at 1-2. Defendants identify the injury as the availability of this sales data to competitors and the public, citing Tenth Circuit precedent for sealing “proprietary business information.” Id. at 2. Finally, defendants acknowledge the public's “interest in disclosure of documents.” Id. But defendants assert that their “interest in maintaining . . . sales data as confidential outweighs the public's interest in access” to it, and that redacting the tables “will not interfere with the public's understanding of the case.” Id. The motion is unopposed. Id.
The court has reviewed the proposed redacted tables and finds the unopposed motion complies with the governing substantive standard for permitting a party to make sealed filings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Motion to Redact (Doc. 370) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of August, 2023, at Kansas City, Kansas.