`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`No. 5:19CV36-RWS
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`The Court issues the following sua sponte. Contemporaneously with this Order, the
`
`undersigned United States Magistrate Judge is entering an Order denying Maxell, Ltd.’s Opposed
`
`Motion for Sanctions (Docket Entry # 210). Because the Court cites at length allegations from
`
`briefing which the parties have filed under seal, the Court has sealed the Order.
`
`A district court must use caution when exercising its discretion to place records under seal
`
`because there is a “strong presumption that all trial proceedings should be subject to scrutiny by
`
`the public.” United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir.
`
`2010); see also Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Blain, 808 F.2d 395, 399 (5th Cir. 1987) (“The
`
`district court’s discretion to seal the record of judicial proceedings is to be exercised charily”).
`
`Even where no party opposes sealing, the burden is on the movant to establish the presumption in
`
`favor of public records is overcome.
`
`Given this presumption, the Court will unseal the Order denying Maxell, Ltd.’s Opposed
`
`Motion for Sanctions (Docket Entry # 210). Before doing so, however, the Court will allow the
`
`parties fourteen days from the date of entry of this Order in which to submit a proposed publicly-
`
`available redacted version of the Order. The parties shall redact only those portions of the Order
`
`with respect to which the parties have a legitimate and overriding business interest in maintaining
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 498 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 26923
`
`confidentiality and shall be prepared to submit a particularized showing regarding those redactions
`
`in the event the Court finds it necessary.
`
`The parties shall advise the Court in writing if no redactions are necessary.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
