United States District Court, D. Delaware
SIEMENS MOBILITY INC. Plaintiff,
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION d/b/a WABTEC CORPORATION and WABTEC RAILWAY ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants.
HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are Westinghouse's Motion for
Reconsideration and to Expunge (D.I. 464) and Siemens'
Motion to Strike Westinghouse's Reply In Support of Its
Motion to Expunge (D.I. 494). Having reviewed the
parties' briefs, letters, and declarations (D.I. 464,
477-78, 487-92, 495, 498, 500-02, 509-11), and having heard
argument on May 28, 2019 (D.I. 531 at 132-35), IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
Westinghouse's Motion for Reconsideration and to Expunge
(D.I. 464) is DENIED as to reconsideration
and GRANTED as to the request to expunge
from the public record any portion of an exhibit admitted at
trial other than the pages that were displayed in open Court.
Siemens' Motion to Strike (D.I. 494) is
DENIED. As Westinghouse's reply brief
supports its motion for expungement, its filing is not in
clear violation of D. Del. LR 7.1.5(a), which limits briefing
on motions for reargument to an opening and answering brief.
More importantly, the Court has found Westinghouse's
reply brief to be helpful, as it properly responds to
Siemens' arguments regarding timing. Any prejudice to
Siemens has been adequately addressed by the Court's
allowance of a sur-reply brief by Siemens (see D.I.
503, 509), which the Court has considered in reaching its
to Local Rule 7.1.5, a motion for reconsideration should be
granted only "sparingly." The decision to grant
such a motion lies squarely within the discretion of the
district court. See Dentsply Int'l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg.
Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 385, 419 (D. Del. 1999); Brambles
USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F.Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del.
1990). These types of motions are granted only if the Court
has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside
the adversarial issues presented by the parties, or made an
error not of reasoning but of apprehension. See Schering
Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 25 F.Supp.2d 293, 295 (D. Del.
1998); Brambles, 735 F.Supp. at 1241. A motion for
reconsideration may be granted only if the movant can show at
least one of the following: (i) there has been an intervening
change in controlling law; (ii) the availability of new
evidence not available when the court made its decision; or
(iii) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact
to prevent manifest injustice. See Max's Seafood Cafe
by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d
Cir. 1999). However, in no instance should reconsideration be
granted if it would not result in amendment of an order.
See Schering Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d at 295.
Court is denying Westinghouse's request that it
reconsider its denial of Westinghouse's post-trial
request to alter the publicly-available status of PX-326.
(See D.I. 457, 463) At the pretrial conference, the
Court explained that the "preferable process" for
dealing with confidential documents is for the parties to use
excerpts and demonstratives during trial and to make
"specific requests" to "enter [the documents]
into evidence on a sealed basis." (D.I. 450 (Jan. 3,
2019 Tr.) at 29) Westinghouse failed to make a "specific
request" to seal PX-326 before, during, or after
trial, until February 19, more than three weeks after the
jury returned a verdict on January 25 (D.I. 447). The Court
continues to feel that "Westinghouse waived its
objection" to unsealing PX-326. (D.I. 463)
Court will, however, grant Westinghouse's alternative
request that it expunge from the public record all portions
of PX-326 that were not displayed in open Court. Only
approximately eight pages of this 1, 017-page document were
shown in Court; only these limited portions of the lengthy
document were testified about or called out to the jury. The
public can fully understand the record on which the jury
based its verdict by having access only to the eight pages of
the document and the testimony about those pages, all of
which will remain in the public record.
has demonstrated good cause for removing from the public
record the other 1, 009 pages, as it would be irreparably
harmed by public dissemination of the full document. PX-326
is a copy of "Westinghouse's I-ETMS On-Board Segment
Requirement Specification," which "contains
detailed steps regarding the operation of Westinghouse's
I-ETMS on-board segment" and the actions it takes in
response to various events. (D.I. 492 (Declaration of Robert
Bourg) at 2) Other than failing to comply with
the Court's sealing procedures in connection with trial,
Westinghouse "has taken significant efforts to maintain
the confidentiality" of PX-326, such as by including
non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality provisions in
customer contracts. (See id.) Westinghouse has
demonstrated that public dissemination of PX-326 "would
be extremely detrimental to Westinghouse's
business." (Id. at 3)
is a strong presumption that material introduced into
evidence at trial should be made available for public
access." Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 678,
678 (3d Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted).
"It is well established that the release of information
in open court is a publication of that information and, if no
effort is made to limit its disclosure, operates as a waiver
of any rights a party had to restrict its future use."
Id. at 680 (internal quotation marks omitted). Under
the circumstances here, while the full 1, 017 pages of PX-326
were admitted into evidence at trial, in reality only eight
pages were pertinent to the issues before the jury. Public
dissemination of the full document would irreparably harm
Westinghouse, by making available its confidential business
information. In these circumstances, the Court has concluded
that the most reasonable exercise of its discretion is to
expunge from the publicly-available trial record the 1, 009
pages of this commercially-sensitive document that
realistically played no part in the trial or the jury's
evaluation of the parties' disputes. See Id.
("[C]ourts may deny access to judicial records . ..
where they are sources of business information that might
harm a litigant's competitive standing."); see
also Amgen Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., 336 F.Supp.3d 333,
358-59 (D. Del. 2018) (permitting redactions of sensitive
information in exhibits not published in their entirety in
IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
version of PX-326 that is currently in the Court's trial
record shall be STRICKEN and shall be
replaced by a redacted version of PX-326 that reveals only
the text of the approximately eight pages that were displayed
in open Court during trial.
parties shall meet and confer and, no later than July
22, 2019, submit a redacted version of PX-326 that
complies with this Order.