`
`
`MIDWEST ENERGY EMISSIONS
`CORP. and MES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 19-1334-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`At Wilmington, Delaware this 6th day of February, 2024.
`
`WHEREAS, on October 16, 2023, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion (the “MO”)
`
`regarding Defendants’ motion for summary judgment No. 1: non-infringement based on licensed
`
`use of process, (D.I. 586);
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, the Court released the MO under seal in recognition that it may contain
`
`confidential information, pending review by the parties to allow them to submit a single, jointly
`
`proposed, redacted version (if necessary) of the MO, (id. at 11);
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, on October 19, 2023, Plaintiffs Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. and MES
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Motion to Redact the MO, submitting that the redactions
`
`(relating to specific provisions of license agreements with third parties) are necessary because
`
`disclosure of the information reflected in the proposed redacted text would cause harm to
`
`Plaintiffs and the third parties at issue, (D.I. 592 at 1);
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ redactions, (id. at 3);
`
`WHEREAS, the proposed redactions are limited in scope, totaling less than a page of the
`
`11-page MO, (id., ex. A);
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 658 Filed 02/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17057
`
`WHEREAS, although the redacted material does have a bearing on the Court’s ultimate
`
`decision, sufficient context is provided by the remainder of the opinion to allow the reader to
`
`understand the Court’s decision-making rationale;
`
`WHEREAS, the redacted material relates to specific provisions of recently negotiated,
`
`confidential licenses between Plaintiffs and two third parties, (D.I. 592 at 2);
`
`WHEREAS, and considering the question as to this Motion only, the Court finds that the
`
`presumption of public access with respect to the redacted material has been rebutted, in that
`
`Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect
`
`and that disclosure of it will work a “clearly defined and serious injury[,]” see In re Avandia
`
`Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d. Cir. 2019) (internal quotation
`
`marks and citation omitted);
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion is GRANTED.
`
`Any and all publicly-available copies of the MO, including but not limited to
`
`copies that are or will be available by remote electronic access, shall be redacted as delineated in
`
`Exhibit A of the Motion, (D.I. 592, ex. A).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`Christopher J. Burke
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`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
