Third party intervention allowed to challenge protective order
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Au Optronics Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 06-726-LPS, December 29, 2010.
Stark, J. Third party Anvik’s motion for limited intervention to obtain copies of evidence is granted in part and denied in part.
Anvik brought a patent infringement action in S.D.N.Y. against the parties in this Delaware action involving the same LCD display technology. Anvik contends the sealed pretrial briefs, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, transcripts, and evidence are highly relevant to the New York action and contends the New York protective order provides sufficient protection to protect confidentiality. The parties oppose the modification to the protective order noting that they have relied on that order in producing documents. The court finds that limited intervention is warranted to challenge the protective order in the Delaware action. It denies the motion to the extent that it seeks modification of the Delaware protective order, however. It further declines to consider a new argument regarding the public right of access to judicial documents because it was raised for the first time in the reply brief.
