Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

— 1 Case 3:00-cv-00754-JBA Document 509 Filed 07/18/2005 Page1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT '
1
Sony Electronics, Inc., : E
et al. : ,
: Lead Docket
V. : 3:00cv754 (JBA)
Soundview Technologies, Inc. S A
Order [Doc. # 472, 481] E
The parties' motions for permission to file documents under I
seal [Docs. ## 472, 48l] are DENIED, as no showing of good cause I
has been made. If either party wants to designate anything filed
with the Court as confidential and place it under seal, that
party will have to: (1) file a redacted public version of the
document in which only the specific, narrowly drawn material that ’
the party claims is confidential is redacted from the document; 1
and (2) make a separate motion in accordance with D. Conn. L. R.
5(d), specifying precisely what the parties wish to be kept under
seal and making a particularized showing of good cause as to why
the Court should depart from the strong presumption against
sealing any court records to public inspection. See Nixon v.
Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99 (1978); United States v. ,
Graham, 257 F.3d 143, 150 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v.
Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir. 1995); Video Software Dealers 1
Assoc. v. Orion Pictures, Corp. (In re Orion Pictures Corp.), 21
F.3d 24, 26 (2d Cir. 1994). As the Second Circuit recently made
clear, the public and the press have a "gualified First Amendment
1
t 1
1
1








I { Case 3:00-cv-00754-JBA Document 509 Filed 07/18/2005 Page 2 of 3
i
l right of access" to inspect and make copies of judicial documents
l and docket sheets. Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 371 F.3d
49, 59 (2d Cir. 2004).
In limited circumstances and upon a showing of compelling
circumstances, this Court may order certain records to be sealed.
§ee Hartford Courant Co., 371 F.3d at 62~63 (judicial records
enjoy a "presumption of openness," a presumption that is
rebuttable only "upon demonstration that suppression is essential %
to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that E
interest") (internal quotations omitted). However, "[i]n most l
cases, a judge must carefully and skeptically review sealing -
requests to insure that there really is an extraordinary i
circumstance or compelling need." In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 p
F.3d at 27 (citation omitted); see Securities & Exchange Comm'n
v. The Street.com, 273 F.3d 222, 232 (2d Cir. 2001). Moreover,
ordinarily, a court must make that determination on the basis of l
a careful document—by—document review of the particular portions
of the document that a party wishes to be kept under seal and l
l
after considering whether the requested order is no broader than
necessary to serve the interests that require protection. gee K
Amodeo, 7l F.3d at 1050-51. A blanket sealing order would
rarely, if ever, be appropriate. Furthermore, the parties' Q
agreement to seal or limit disclosure of documents on file is not E
a sufficient basis for granting such an order. ld; Until either
2
l
I

_____________________*__________________“_______*m__________“________________wwU

` i Case 3:00-cv-00754-JBA Document 509 Filed 07/18/2005 Page30f3
pdlfliy Cl@ITlOI`lSlCI`&lZ€S JCl'1€ €XlSE@l’l(I€3 of @XT.l'¤ElO1TC1.l.H€;1fy Cll'CllmSlj or a compelling need to seal from public view any particular i
portion of any specific document filed in this case, this Court
will not déépélflj fIOI`l’l `Cl'1@ Q`OV€l§`Hj.1'1q SJLZ]1`Ol'1Q' p]L`E3S1.1I"[l};)*LZIiO1'1 of Op@1’1 ;
QCCQSS. 1
Accordingly, the Court directs the parties to show cause
within ten days why the Soundview’s opposition to the Sony Q
Parties' Motion for Attorneys Fees, and the parties' exhibits in
· support of their attorneys fees memoranda, should be sealed. If E
no response is received within ten days, the Court shall order i
these documents to be publicly docketed.
lT IS SO ORDERED. _
- ,. /1 . I
Japeg Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. . l

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: July lg/, 2005. 1
W
l
l
E
3 N
E
l