Filed: Feb. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2020
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER GILBERT C. SISON , Magistrate Judge . Now before the Court is a supplemented transcript redaction request filed jointly by the parties. On September 23, 2019, the undersigned held a discovery dispute conference in this action. (Doc. 43). A transcript of the hearing was prepared (Doc. 67), and the parties jointly requested significant redactions of the transcript. The requests have been referred to the undersigned for disposition. Upon review, the undersigned is inclined
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER GILBERT C. SISON , Magistrate Judge . Now before the Court is a supplemented transcript redaction request filed jointly by the parties. On September 23, 2019, the undersigned held a discovery dispute conference in this action. (Doc. 43). A transcript of the hearing was prepared (Doc. 67), and the parties jointly requested significant redactions of the transcript. The requests have been referred to the undersigned for disposition. Upon review, the undersigned is inclined t..
More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GILBERT C. SISON, Magistrate Judge.
Now before the Court is a supplemented transcript redaction request filed jointly by the parties. On September 23, 2019, the undersigned held a discovery dispute conference in this action. (Doc. 43). A transcript of the hearing was prepared (Doc. 67), and the parties jointly requested significant redactions of the transcript. The requests have been referred to the undersigned for disposition. Upon review, the undersigned is inclined to redact portions of the transcript, but finds that the requests made by the parties, which encompass more than 20 pages of the 46-page transcript, are too broad.
As the Court noted in its Order directing the parties to supplement their redaction requests, there is a presumption that judicial records are in the public domain, and there is both a common law and a constitutional right of access to documents filed in litigation. See, e.g., Baxter Intern., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2002); Methodist Hosps., Inc. v. Sullivan, 91 F.3d 1026, 1031 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Corbitt, 879 F.2d 224, 228 (7th Cir. 1989); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-599 (1978). That is to say that "court files should be open to the public for inspection and copying. . . unless "its records would be used for `improper purposes.'" Corbitt, 879 F.2d at 228.
Having carefully reviewed the requested redactions and the arguments made in favor of the redactions by the parties, the undersigned finds the following redactions of the September 2019 motion hearing transcript appropriate:
• Page 8, line 20 through line 25;
• Page 10, line 24 through Page 11, line 12;
• Page 12, line 1 through line 9 and line 22 through line 25;
• Page 13, line 1 through line 6 and line 18 through line 22;
• Page 15, line 8 through line 15 and line 20 through line 23;
• Page 17, line 14 through Page 18, line 4;
• Page 23, line 12 through Page 25, line 10;
• Page 27, line 20 through line 23;
• Page 28, line 14 through line 21;
• Page 30, line 7 through 10;
• Page 31, line 22 through Page 32 line 15; and
• Page 42, line 22 through Page 43 line 5.
These narrower redactions should address the parties' concerns while also balancing the importance of retaining open and public court records. The Court will entertain limited objections from the parties to the above-listed redactions, but the parties should bear in mind that the undersigned is not inclined to redact the transcript to the extent they requested. Any objections shall be filed on or before March 5, 2020, and the objections shall not exceed 3 pages in length.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
