Judge Richard G. Andrews recently denied, in large part, a motion to redact the transcript of a pretrial conference. Delaware Display Group LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., C.A. No. 13-2109 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2016). The Court explained that “[s]imply because the parties have designated the information as ‘restricted – attorneys’ eyes only,’ or with some lesser designation under a protective order is almost irrelevant to the present issue, that is, whether the information should be redacted from a judicial transcript.” That is because once the information is “disclosed in a judicial proceeding, 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 acknowledged that the interest in preserving confidentiality of commercially sensitive information will at time justify redacting such information from the public record. In this case, Judge Andrews found no justification to redact references in the transcript to “license agreements, settlement agreements, and indemnification agreements . . . with little specificity other than the identification of the parties to the agreements.” The Court did, however, find that reference to “two numbers” was appropriate.