In an Order Monday, Judge McMahon chided a group of defendants for “asking for permission to file almost everything in support of their motion for summary judgment and motions to exclude testimony of plaintiff’s various experts under seal.”
Referring to the required confidentiality stipulation “addendum” in her Individual Practices — which states “that confidentiality stipulations are abused by parties and that much material that is not truly confidential is designated as such” — Judge McMahon directed the defendants to instead evaluate confidentiality with a more careful, line-by-line approach:
Defendants point to the fact that these materials either were designated as “confidential” pursuant to the parties confidentiality stipulation or contain material that has been designated as “confidential.” Sadly, that won’t wash. We have reached the point in this lawsuit where that confidentiality stipulation — designed to facilitate discovery — ceases to persuade.
The parties cannot say that I did not warn them; the version of the stipulation that I signed contained my addendum, in which I expressed the view that most of what gets designated as confidential is really not.
. . . .
For the moment, defendants must provide chambers with unredacted copies of all briefs, reports and exhibits (hard copies; we are not going to do your copying for you). For the moment, you may file the briefs and supporting motion papers in redacted form and the exhibit under seal. As soon as briefing on the motions is complete, get to work justifying why each individual exhibit and each line or reference in a brief or affidavit qualifies as a trade secret or is otherwise properly filed under seal.
The Order is also notable for revealing Judge McMahon’s skepticism of the utility of oral argument
Defendants also ask for oral argument on the summary judgment motions and the Daubert motions. We shall see if it is necessary; it rarely is.