Opinion ID: 2403365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: Emergency motion for access to Court Only User Docket

Text: In their appellate reply brief, the WideBand defendants argue that the district court erred in permitting ClearOne to file documents that were maintained on a separate Court Only User Docket. Aplt. Reply Br. at 38 (capitalization in original omitted). According to the WideBand defendants, the existence of this Court Only User Docket was finally brought to light on February 11, 2011 in a district court docket entry noting that [a] court user only docket sheet ... [wa]s being transmitted by email to counsel for the parties who ha[d] access to attorneys' eyes only information and would thus permit counsel for Biamp to evaluate the need for any documents identified in its motion for clarification of a November 3, 2010 order issued by the magistrate judge regarding certain sealed documents in the case. [15] Id. (quoting Dist. Ct. Docket No. 2426). The driving concern behind this issue appears to be the WideBand defendants' belief that the district court, through use of this Court Only User Docket, afforded ClearOne special privileges in terms of filing pleadings or other documents. Relatedly, the WideBand defendants complain that, [p]rior to trial, 65 docket entries were sealed and rendered inaccessible by them. Id. at 39. The WideBand defendants in turn argue that [t]he existence of dual docketing systems in this case is highly irregular, especially where there were other means by which the Trial Court could seal or mark particular documents as confidentialmeans that were much more conducive to [their] constitutional rights. Id. at 40. In the interests of fairness, they argue, this case should be remanded to determine the exact nature and purport of the documents contained in the `Court Only User Docket.' Id. We reject the WideBand defendants' arguments for a number of reasons. To begin with, this purported issue has never been ruled on in the district court. As we have noted, on March 3, 2011, the WideBand defendants filed a pleading entitled EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ACCESS TO `COURT ONLY USER DOCKET,' that essentially raised the same arguments that the WideBand defendants are now urging on appeal. Dist. Ct. Docket No. 2454. That motion, however, has not yet been ruled on by the district court. Second, and relatedly, the WideBand defendants are raising this issue for the first time in their reply brief. Ordinarily, however, [t]his court does not ... review issues raised for the first time in a reply brief. Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 636 F.3d 1300, 1306 n. 3 (10th Cir.2011). Third, even ignoring these procedural deficiencies, there is clearly no merit to the WideBand defendants' arguments. Apparently, they are unaware that the district court, like this court, maintains both a publicly accessible docket and a docket intended for court personnel only. There is simply no basis for concluding that this system provided any litigation advantage to ClearOne. Indeed, there is no evidence that ClearOne had access to the so-called Court Only User Docket. Lastly, with respect to the WideBand defendants' argument that they were not allowed access to certain documents prior to trial, the record on appeal does establish that the district court's confidentiality orders effectively precluded the WideBand defendants from viewing certain ClearOne documents. However, those confidentiality orders allowed the WideBand defendants' counsel (except for current counsel, Randolph Frails, who was retained well after the entry of final judgment) and their expert witnesses access to the ClearOne documents. Thus, there is simply no basis for concluding that the WideBand defendants' were prejudiced in any way (and, notably, the WideBand defendants do not make any specific allegations of prejudice).