Source: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/plaintiffs-motion-permission-file-competitively-sensitive-information-underseal
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:14:14+00:00

Document:
1. Plaintiff has today filed with the Court a Complaint alleging that the proposed acquisition by SunGard of substantially all of the disaster recovery solutions assets of Comdisco violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. The United States has also filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, a memorandum in support of that motion, and appendices with supporting declarations, documents, and other materials.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint, Memorandum in Support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and supporting appendices contain, or make references to, business plans, sales and revenue information, and other competitively sensitive information produced by SunGard, Comdisco and third parties to the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice during its investigation of SunGard's proposed acquisition. This information was provided to the Department in confidence and has been protected from public disclosure during the Department's investigation. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 18a(h); 28 C.F.R. §16.7.
3. Public disclosure of the confidential information contained in plaintiff's Complaint, memorandum, and supporting appendices might place the companies that provided the information -- including SunGard and Comdisco -- at a competitive disadvantage with respect to their competitors, who would gain access to sensitive business plans and product development and marketing information. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7), the Court may enter an order to restrict the disclosure of such sensitive business information. "It is clear that a court may issue a protective order restricting disclosure of discovery materials to protect a party from being put at a competitive disadvantage." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Corp., 529 F. Supp. 866, 890 (E.D. Pa. 1981); Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co., 93 F.R.D. 24, 29 (D.D.C. 1981) (imposing a protective order on documents submitted to protect third-party from likely competitive harm should they be released).
4. Nevertheless, plaintiff recognizes the public's legitimate interest in having access to court filings. Plaintiff will therefore file redacted versions of the Complaint and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order as soon as is practicable.
5. One reason plaintiff seeks to restrain and enjoin SunGard's proposed acquisition is to prevent competitive harm resulting from the flow of competitively sensitive business information between SunGard and Comdisco while litigation is pending. To prevent the exchange of information between SunGard and Comdisco before the Court enters a protective order, as well as to protect the interests of third parties who have provided plaintiff with confidential business information, plaintiff seeks interim relief limiting access to competitively sensitive information to defendants' outside counsel.
6. Courts have recognized the need to restrict inside counsel's access to competitively sensitive information when inside counsel plays a role in competitive decision-making. E.g., Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1471 (9th Cir. 1992). To the extent that defendants' inside counsel are involved in the making of business decisions, their unrestricted access to sensitive information obtained from competitors or customers would put inside counsel in the "untenable position of having to refuse [their] employer legal advice lest [they] improperly or indirectly reveal" competitively sensitive information learned through litigation. Brown Bag Software, 960 F.2d at 1471 (internal quotations omitted). The Court should therefore bar inside counsel's access to competitively sensitive information, at least the entry of a Stipulated Protective Order.
7. Plaintiff does not believe that limiting the access defendants' inside counsel have to competitively sensitive information will interfere with defendants' ability to organize their defense. Defendants are represented by prominent, knowledgeable outside antitrust counsel.
Attached hereto is a proposed order granting plaintiff's motion to file plaintiff's Complaint, Memorandum in Support of the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and supporting appendices under seal and to limit access to this information to outside counsel.
Pursuant to D.D.C. Rule 7.1(m), plaintiff discusssed this motion with opposing counsel on October 22, 2001, in an effort to narrow any areas of disagreement, and opposing counsel have indicated that they do not oppose it.

References: § 18
 § 18
 §16
 v. 
 v. 
 v.