December 4, 2020

Volume X, Number 339

Advertisement

December 04, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Nice Confidentiality You Have There – Would be a Pity if Something Happened to It

What happens when a litigant accidentally publicly files unredacted or poorly redacted information meant to be redacted pursuant to a protective order?  Its confidentiality is gone, baby. Gone.  At least that is the implication from an order entered last week in the now-dismissed patent row between Skyhook Wireless and Google.  In a March 3, 2015 Order, the Honorable Rya W. Zobel noted that, “[t]he court does not ‘have the power, even were it of the mind to use it, to make what has thus become public private again.’”  The Court further ordered that, “[w]ith the formerly confidential information no longer secret, there is no reason for either the incorrectly redacted or the unredacted versions of the documents to be impounded.”

confidentialThe issue arose the week before when Skyhook publicly filed apparently incorrectly redacted versions of three trial exhibits.  Five days later, the parties notified the Court of the problem, and the Court temporarily removed the three exhibits from the docket to allow the parties time to move to correct the exhibits.  Despite a joint motion and the agreement of both parties that the exhibits should be corrected, the Court denied the motion saying essentially that once released to the public (and available on PACER for approximately five days), the information sought to be kept confidential could no longer be considered secret.

The Court’s decision is a cautionary tale for anyone filing potentially confidential material in court – once it is out there, any confidentiality may be gone, even if the parties agree.

The case is Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 1-10-cv-11571 in the District of Massachusetts. A copy of the Court’s order denying the joint motion to correct the exhibits is available here.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP. National Law Review, Volume V, Number 70
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Brendan Cox, ProskauerRose, Litigation Laywer
Associate

Brendan Cox is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Intellectual Property Group. Prior to joining Proskauer, Brendan accumulated five years of litigation experience as an Assistant District Attorney in the Suffolk County, Massachusetts District Attorney’s office. Focusing primarily on drug and gang-related issues, he prosecuted more than 3,000 matters to resolution, and participated in more than 50 trials. Before that, Brendan worked for two years doing FMRI and MEG brain imaging research at the Massachusetts General Hospital. 

617.526.9474
Advertisement
Advertisement