Jeffrey Cole, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motorola has filed another series of motions relating to the ongoing and contentious discovery in this case. This Order refers to three motions to seal exhibits and briefs. The motions are granted as to the filing of exhibits under seal, but denied as to the filing of briefs under seal. The three motions are:
# 444- Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs Opposition to Hyteras Motion to Compel: Paragraphs two and three indicate that the brief will be redacted because it refers to contents of confidential exhibits. [Dkt. # 444]. However, the public version of the Brief in Support of Motorolas Opposition to Hyteras Motion to Compel is not redacted at all. [Dkt. # 442].
# 450- Motion to File Under Seal: This motion indicates it refers to Motorolas Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions and says that the supporting Brief is redacted in paragraph 2, but the public version of the Brief in Support of Their Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions in not redacted. [Dkt. # 448].
# 454- Motion to File Under Seal Motorolas Opposition to Hyteras Motion to Compel Full and Complete Trade Secret Identification: This motion that the supporting brief is redacted where it refers to confidential information. This is the only brief of the three addressed in Motorolas motions to seal that is actually redacted and it is redacted extensively. [Dkt. # 453].
Despite my earlier warning, [Dkt. # 433], Motorola claims that significant portions of these briefs merit redaction because they refer[ ] to the contents of [confidential exhibits], and otherwise contain material that is considered by the parties as CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER under the confidentiality order issued in this case. Motorola repeats this same mantra in all three motions to seal. [Dkt. # 444, 450, 454]. Even a cursory comparison of the redacted and sealed versions of the briefs undermines Motorolas claim that everything captioned confidential information is, in fact, confidential. In fact, most of it is not.
Because the parties have already been warned, [Dkt. # 433] about the strong norm that judicial proceedings are open to public view, Matter of Husain , 866 F.3d 832, 835 (7th Cir. 2017), the court will not parse the briefs redaction by redaction. A few examples will serve to demonstrate that Motorola has filed its motions to seal indiscriminately and without a proper basis.
First, there are Motorolas motions to seal Plaintiffs Opposition to Hyteras Motion to Compel [Dkt. # 444] and Motion to Motorolas Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions. While the motion repeats the all-to-familiar mantra regarding the brief referring to confidential materials, the briefs [Dkt. # 442, # 448] contain no redactions. So, its not clear what Motorola intended there, but the motions as to these briefs is denied.
Next, there is the motion to seal Motorolas Opposition to Hyteras Motion to Compel Full and Complete Trade Secret Identification. Again, the brief supposedly reveals confidential information. But, the first redaction in Docket # 452 is to flood the market with products it developed with stolen source code and thousands of confidential Motorola technical documents. [Dkt. # 452, at 1]. There is no revelation of anything confidential, and worse, there isnt a reference to any confidential documents, contrary to Motorolas claims. To further illustrate the often groundless and excessive nature of a number of items Motorola insists be filed under seal, Motorolas complaint, not filed under seal, makes the same accusation.
Motorola goes on from there with the following redactions: code and technical documents that were copied directly from Motorola; lines of source code that Hytera copied into its products; containing the very same Motorola source code and other trade secret technologies that were stolen. Again, we know the case is about Motorola accusing Hytera of stealing its trade secrets. What could Motorola legitimately mean about these portions of its brief containing confidential materials? But so many of the materials that are marked as confidential do not qualify for confidential treatment.
This litigation is no different than any other: it should be conducted in public to the maximum extent consistent with respecting trade secrets and other facts that should be held in confidence. Hicklin Engineering L.C. v. Bartell , 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006) ; Modine Mfg. Co. v. Borg-Warner, Inc. , 2013 WL 5651381 at *14 (E.D.Wis. 2013). Closed proceedings breed suspicion of prejudice and arbitrariness, which in turn spawns disrespect for law. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia , 448 U.S. 555, 595, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). See, e.g. , Baxter Intl, Inc. , 297 F.3d at 544. The determination of good cause [to seal materials] cannot be elided by allowing the parties to seal whatever they want, .... Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co. , 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999).
A party hoping to file materials in secret must justify the claim of secrecy and analyze the applicable legal criteria or contend that any document ... may ... legitimately may be kept from public inspection despite its importance to the resolution of the litigation. Baxter Intl , 297 F.3d at 546. Simply asserting, as Motorola does with frequency, that something should be filed under seal is not enough. Even the agreement of the parties will not justify the entry of a protective order that ought not otherwise be entered. Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works Ltd , 30 F.3d 854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994) ; County Materials Corp v. Allan Block Corp. , 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007). Whatever may have been done in the past cannot and will not justify under seal filings of things that by no stretch of the legal imagination qualify as under seal treatment.
Things dont improve much from there. One supposes an attorney taking a belt and suspenders approach might feint-heartedly redact design and implementation of the option board alert tones in its digital two-way DMR radio systems or particular pages in 6 of Motorolas documents where the feature is described with particularity or Motorolas design and implementation of the list handler utility and citing Motorolas How to Use List Handler presentation, thinking that even a peripheral reference to the subject matter of a confidential snippet of information cannot be available for public view. But thats along the lines of thinking that mentioning someone had a conversation with an attorney, as opposed to the substance of that conversation, is privileged. Of course its not. Motorola Sols., Inc. v. Hytera Commcns Corp. , 2018 WL 1804350, at *4 (N.D. Ill. 2018) ; 8 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2017 (1970) ; Beraha v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. , 1994 WL 494654, at *3 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Again, the question remains, how are any of these snippets, and others like them in page after page of the brief, actually confidential? The same goes for redactions like messaging feature, Radio Operating System (ROS) Users Manual, buffers, used for carrying messages, Message Cuing, and on and on. Motorola certainly makes no case that any of them are. How, for example, can the word events be confidential? Or the words technical documents, marketing plans, intellectual property strategies and computer code? Or the word three? Yet, according to Motorola, and without any explanation, all of these are confidential and properly require under seal treatment.
Aside from that, there are some actual quotes from Motorolas trade secrets, which may remain redacted at pages 7, 8, and perhaps elsewhere. But, in the main, the brief must be refiled without redactions other than actual confidential trade secret information. Its not up to the court to sift through these materials to determine what is actually a trade secret or confidential, see, e.g. , Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail , LLC, 770 F.3d 618, 627 (7th Cir.2014) (noting that district courts are not required to sift record for evidence helpful to a partys arguments); Spitz v. Proven Winners N. Am., LLC , 759 F.3d 724, 731 (7th Cir. 2014) ([a] brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.). If Motorola really thinks, in good faith, that any of the other types of redactions exemplified herein are truly confidential, they must file a brief explaining why, on a page by page basis. Simply put, indiscriminate designations of confidentiality are not permissible.
Accordingly, Motorolas motions to seal [Dkt. # 444, # 450, # 454] are granted in part and denied in part. Those motions or parts of motions that seek to file briefs under seal are denied. Motorola may refile it brief in support of its Opposition to Hyteras Motion to Compel Full and Complete Trade Secret Identification with redactions properly limited to trade secret information.