Judge Richard G. Andrews recently rejected the parties’ request to redact a hearing transcript. ViaTech Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 14-1226-RGA (D. Del. Jun. 6, 2016). Relying on Mosaid Tech Inc. v. LSI Corp, 878 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012) and Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994), Judge Andrews found that the parties did not establish good cause to seal the designated portions of the transcript. Id. at 1-2. Judge Andrews noted that the parties did not submit an affidavit or declaration showing “why disclosure of the information might cause a clearly defined serious injury to” the parties. Id. at 2. The sole fact that information had been designated as confidential under a protective order was insufficient to establish a “clearly defined and serious injury.” Id. Although there is not much interest in the information in the proposed redactions (i.e., discovery issues), “once [such information] is disclosed in a judicial proceedings [sic], 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.” Id. Further, even if the information were “redaction-worthy” they were “significantly broader” than appropriate or necessary. Id.