Published on:

Judge Andrews rules on unopposed motion to redact hearing transcript

Judge Richard G. Andrews recently provided guidance on the redaction of public hearing transcripts in ruling on an unopposed motion to redact.  Delaware Display Group, LLC v. Lenovo Holding Co., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-2018-RGA, -2109-RGA, -2112-RGA (D. Del. May. 10, 2016).  Judge Andrews explained that the fact that information is designated as attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order is not determinative of whether it is appropriately redacted from a public hearing transcript.  That is because once the information is revealed in a public hearing, “it is in the public interest to be able to understand the proceedings before a judge, and redaction of the transcript hinders that public interest.”  The Court recognized that there are exceptions, such as where the information contains “pricing terms in license agreements, some other non-public financial information, trade secrets, and other proprietary technology[,]” but added that this type of information can be hinted at during a hearing without threatening a “clearly defined and serious injury” that would justify redacting it from the public record under Third Circuit law.  Judge Andrews added that even this type of information is less likely to warrant redaction where it “is old, or general, or already in the public record, and was relevant to the judicial proceeding.”

Contact Information