Judge: Leonard Davis
Holding: Unopposed Motion to Redact Portions of Hearing Transcript DENIED
After setting forth the Eastern District's procedures to redact personally identifying information from transcripts, Judge Davis warned the parties that the Court rarely redacts statements made in open court and thus already in the public domain unless they contain the information set forth in the policy or they are "impertinent, scandalous, or inadvertent disclosures of trade secrets." Redaction, unlike sealing of the record, permanently removes that portion from the transcript, the court noted, and as a result "the appellate court is deprived of the redacted information.... [w]ithout a specific showing of likely harm the Court will not order redaction simply because a party deems the statements sensitive or confidential."
The court also noted the burden on the district's court reporters (an exemplar reporter is shown at right), as well as the established procedures to seal the courtroom and transcript during hearings and trial to protect nonpublic, proprietary, and sensitive information. Since the information Nintendo requested be redacted was disclosed in open court without any request to seal the courtroom the court denied the motion for redaction. "Nonetheless, the court will allow Nintendo to file a motion requesting portions of the transcript be sealed" and directing any such motion to identify the sections of the transcript to be sealed.
Note: Dramatic reenactment of Nintendo walking away without the relief it requested provided by my other 11 year old son Parker, uh, no, he says it's Steve. (Apparently it's a Minecraft thing).