Opinion ID: 6341392
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Redactions

Text: Defendants challenge the District Court’s holding that Section 10706 can be implemented via redactions. On Defendants’ read, the statute’s directive that qualifying evidence “shall not be admissible” indicates that courts cannot implement the statute’s protections via redactions. Instead, they argue that under Section 10706, evidence either “comes in, or it stays out.” Opening Br. of Appellants 70. Plaintiffs 19 disagree, maintaining that the District Court properly authorized redactions. They argue that the Railroads’ argument against redactions reflects an attempt “to shield unlawful pricefixing agreements if there is a single reference somewhere in the same communication to shared interline movements.” Redacted Br. for Pls.-Appellees 55. We agree with Plaintiffs that Section 10706 can be implemented through redactions of truly segregable portions of documents. As Defendants concede, “different parts of a single document could conceivably reflect two separate discussions, one of which concerns interline traffic, and one of which does not.” Opening Br. of Appellants 74-75. Under such a scenario, “redacting only the interline discussion would be appropriate because the unredacted material is not evidence of a qualifying discussion, and thus lacks any claim to inadmissibility under the statute.” Id. at 75. The text of Section 10706 does not address the issue of redactions. Absent a clear congressional directive to the contrary, we decline to read the statute as divesting trial courts of their authority to redact truly segregable portions of documents. See United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (recognizing trial courts’ “discretionary power to delete objectionable portions” of evidence “where appropriate”). As such, where segregable portions of documents contain protected evidence of discussions or agreements concerning interline movements, the District Court may employ redactions. However, the Railroads remain free to argue that any contested documents that might be subject to redaction should be excluded in their entirety where the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 20