Hutchinson Technology Incorporated v. Suncall Corporation

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota June 18, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Hutchinson Technology Incorporated,  Case No. 21-cv-2618 (SRN/DLM)       

               Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                        

Suncall Corporation,                                                     

               Defendant.                                                


    This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hutchinson Technology Incorporated’s 
(“HTI”) Motion Regarding Transcript Redactions (Docs. 261 (motion), 262 (exhibit)) in 
which HTI seeks certain redactions to a corrected transcript of a hearing held on December 
8,  2023  (Doc.  226  (hearing  transcript)).  Defendant  Suncall  Corporation  (“Suncall”) 
opposes some of HTI’s proposed redactions, as set forth in HTI’s motion (Doc. 261 at 3). 
For the reasons below, the Court grants in part and denies in part HTI’s motion. 
                         BACKGROUND                                      
    During the course of discovery in this lawsuit, the parties filed cross motions to 
compel. (See Docs. 172 (HTI’s motion), 180 (Suncall’s motion).) The Court entertained 
oral argument on these cross motions on December 8, 2023, taking each under advisement. 
(Doc. 209 (text-only hearing minutes).) The parties subsequently ordered a copy of the 
transcript (Docs. 210, 234), and a transcript was filed on December 16, 2023, accompanied 
by a text-entry in the docket notifying the parties that they had seven days to file a notice 
of their intent to request transcript redactions (Doc. 226). HTI timely filed a notice of its 
intent  to  request  redactions  on  December  26,  2023  (Doc.  239),  then  filed  a  motion 
containing the parties’ disagreement on some of HTI’s proposed redactions and seeking 
the Court’s resolution of the dispute. (Doc. 261.) That motion is now before the Court. 

                           ANALYSIS                                      
    Courts rarely review transcripts for confidential information, but counsel may seek 
redactions of such information, especially any personal identifiers such as social security 
numbers or other information that should remain non-public. See D. Minn. LR 5.5(a), (c), 
(e). However, the public has a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” In re Neal,

461 F.3d 1048, 1053

 
(8th Cir. 2006). This right has roots in the “common law presumption in favor of public 
access  to  judicial  records.”  Nixon  v.  Warner  Commc’ns,

435 U.S. 589, 602

  (1978). 
“Judicial orders and hearing transcripts reflect the everyday business of the courts and 
clearly amount to judicial records.” Krueger v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., No. 11-cv-2781 

(SRN/JSM),

2014 WL 12597948

, at *10 (D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2014), aff’d,

2015 WL 224705

 
(D. Minn. Jan. 15, 2015). Courts often use the factors first set forth in United States v. 
Hubbard,

650 F.2d 293, 318

 (D.C. Cir. 1980) as guidance when analyzing whether to 
restrict public access to judicial records that carry a presumption of public availability. 
These factors include:                                                    

    (1) the need for public access to the documents at issue; (2) the extent of 
    previous public access to the documents; (3) the fact that someone has 
    objected to disclosure, and the identity of that person; (4) the strength of any 
    property and privacy interests asserted; (5) the possibility of prejudice to 
    those opposing disclosure; and (6) the purposes for which the documents 
    were introduced during the judicial proceedings.                     
Schedin v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc., 8-cv-5743,

2011 WL 1831597

, at *2 (D. 
Minn. May 12, 2011) (quoting Doe v. Exxon Mobile Corp.,

570 F. Supp. 2d 49, 52

(D.D.C.
2008)).

The parties generally agree on the information that should be sealed, including page
45 at lines 8–10; page 45 at line 19; page 54 at lines 6–17; page 58 at lines 1–3; and page
58 at lines 5–9. (Doc. 261 at 2–4.) The Court agrees and will accordingly order such
portions of the transcript be sealed. However, the parties disagree as to whether page 47 at
lines 1–6 should be sealed.

On page 47 at lines 1–6 of the transcript, HTI’s counsel provides estimates on the
products and versions of products HTI has developed, and the related patents HTI has held
in relation to those products, over a discrete period. HTI argues this information should be
sealed because it is confidential business information that might show a competitor its
patent strategy. HTI further argues such information is sealed in other docket entries.

Suncall disagrees and claims such information is not confidential business information that
a competitor could use to its benefit, and also contends that this information, in whole or
in part, is already in the public domain and therefore need not be sealed here.
The Court finds that the speculative discussion of the quantity of HTI’s developed
products, product versions, and patents over a period of time does not disclose confidential

business strategies that would give a business competitor any advantages. Moreover, the
Court takes judicial notice of the hundreds of patents publicly available concerning HTI.
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), Patent Public Search Basic
(PPUBS Basic), https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/static/pages/ppubsbasic.html (last
visited June 14, 2024). The Court finds that it serves no purpose to redact information
already available to the public. See Hutchinson Tech. Inc. v. Suncall Corp., No. 21-CV-
2618 (SRN/DLM),

2024 WL 2956508

, at *2 (D. Minn. June 12, 2024) (citing Thompson 

v. Kanabec Cnty., No. 17-cv-1926 (DWF/LIB),

2019 WL 13379594

, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 
5, 2019) (quoting prior orders reaching this conclusion)). Therefore, the Court denies HTI’s 
requests for redactions of the hearing transcript on page 47 at lines 1–6.

ORDER

    Accordingly, based on the above, and on all the files, records, and proceedings in 

this action, IT IS ORDERED that:                                          
     1)  Plaintiff  Hutchinson  Technology  Incorporated’s  Motion  Regarding 
         Transcript Redactions (Doc. 261) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED  
         IN PART;                                                        

     2)  The December 8, 2023 hearing’s transcript (Doc. 226) shall be permanently 
         sealed; and                                                     

     3)  Consistent with this Order, the court reporter is directed to file a redacted 
         public version of the December 8, 2023 hearing’s transcript (Doc. 226) as a 
         new docket entry, with redactions identified by the following page and line 
         numbers:                                                        

            •  45:8–10;                                                  
            •  45:19;                                                    
            •  54:6–17;                                                  
            •  58:1–3; and                                               
            •  58:5–9.                                                   


Date: June 17, 2024                s/Douglas L. Micko                    
                                   DOUGLAS L. MICKO                      
                                   United States Magistrate Judge