Moreover, there can be no serious dispute that it is extremely rare for a document filed under seal in a civil case to remain so for all time. There is no suggestion that the documents subject to the protective order are classified as relating to national security. Nor do these documents contain trade secrets or proprietary information. However, even cases in which trade secrets and proprietary information are filed under seal and subject to a protective order, it is not unusual that after the passage of time, that same information is eventually unsealed because the protective order has outlived its usefulness. Indeed, because the government does not argue that information that it requests remain protected concerns matters involving national security, trade secrets, or proprietary information, or that specific privileges attach to any of the seven documents, it is clear that there is no longer a need to maintain the protected designation for them.
Ultimately, there is nothing contained in these documents that gives the court pause regarding de-designation. Although defendant seeks to preserve the status quo and maintain the
3
Case 1:13-cv-00465-MMS Document 313 Filed 04/13/16 Page 4 of 4
protected status of all of the documents at issue, proposing that discussion of protected material could be conducted in a closed session at the end of the oral argument, the information contained within the seven documents no longer needs to be subject to the protective order. Further, as Perry Capital appellants assert, preventing them from discussing the documents during other parts of the oral argument would potentially undermine their ability to fully prosecute their case, as these documents may be relevant to all aspects of their appeal. Consequently, this court does not deem it necessary to constrain that proceeding in the manner that defendant suggests.
Accordingly, Perry Capital appellants’ motion to de-designate the seven documents attached thereto is GRANTED. However, plaintiffs’ renewed motions to de-designate other documents not contained in those seven attachments are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As the court indicated previously, it will address those requests after briefing regarding the renewed motion to dismiss has been completed. The court has filed this order under seal. The parties shall confer to determine proposed redactions that are agreeable to all parties. Then, by no later than Monday, April 18, 2016, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating their agreement with the proposed redactions and attaching a complete copy of the court’s order with all redactions clearly indicated.
NO COSTS.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Margaret M. Sweeney MARGARET M. SWEENEY
