In Wi-Lan USA, Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget TM Ericsson and Ericsson Inc.,
Case No. 12-23569-CV-Middlebrooks (S.D. Fla. March 2015), the Defendant filed
an unopposed motion for leave to file its motion to strike certain paragraphs
of the plaintiff’s supplemental expert
report under seal. Nonetheless, the district court ( Middlebrroks, J )
evaluated whether it was appropriate to seal the motion and accompanying
exhibits. The Defendant had argued that the motion to strike refers to, quotes
from, and attaches exhibits which are designated, contain, and constitute
protected material under a Stipulated Protective Order.
The district court found that
"[g]enerally, the public has a right 'to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.' Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The
Eleventh Circuit has noted, '[t]he operation of the courts and the judicial
conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern and the common-law right
of access to judicial proceedings, an essential component of our system of
justice, is instrumental in securing the integrity of the process.' Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234,
1245 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). 'This right of access is
not absolute, however [and] may be overcome by a showing of good cause.' Id.
'Absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances . . . the court file must
remain accessible to the public.' Brown
v. Advantage Eng 'g, Inc., 960 F. 2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992)."
The district judge went on to
comment, "As I cautioned in the
Protective Order, motions to file documents under seal 'will not be granted
absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances which justify the denial of
public access to the judicial record.', citing
Brown v. Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.3d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992))."
The district court further held that there was insufficient justification for
filing the documents under seal. "The Parties' designation of certain
documents as confidential, by itself, does not justify sealing the record.
Indeed, I reminded the Parties of my policy on sealing when I denied several
Motions to Seal earlier in the case. Defendants' Motion to Strike includes 575
pages of exhibits. The Court will not sort through 575 pages to determine what
information may be confidential. To the extent Ericsson's source code or
algorithms are disclosed within these documents, Ericsson may redact the code
and/or algorithms prior to re-filing its Motion to Strike. Because Ericsson has
not presented any other justifications for sealing the record, I find that
Ericsson has failed to present extraordinary circumstances that warrant filing
its Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying documentation under
seal."