`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`OptoLum, Inc.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`)))))))))))
`
`vs.
`Cree, Inc.,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-
`00687
`
`PLAINTIFF OPTOLUM, INC.’S PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO ORDER NO.
`343
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to the docket text accompanying Order No. 343,
`the parties have met and conferred regarding proposed
`redactions of confidential information. Defendant Cree,
`Inc. has indicated that it has no proposed redactions.
`Therefore, the redacted version of Order No. 343, attached
`as Exhibit A hereto, represents the proposed redactions of
`Plaintiff OptoLum, Inc. (“OptoLum”).
`II.
`EXPLANATION OF PROPOSED REDACTIONS
`highly-sensitive
`The
`redacted
`information
`is
`confidential business information, and as such OptoLum
`would suffer significant and irreparable harm to its
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 347 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`business should such information become public. More
`particularly, OptoLum is a privately held company whose
`business includes the patent assets at issue in this
`litigation. The redacted portions of Order No. 343
`reference discussion of specific valuation of these
`patents. Such information has the potential to harm the
`value of OptoLum’s assets and unfairly prejudice their
`position in business dealings and litigation regarding
`these assets.
`Furthermore, the redacted information does not bear on
`any public issue nor do the contents have any relevance or
`meaning outside of this litigation. The First Amendment
`does not guarantee access to private information including
`the redacted information. The redacted information does
`not bear on any issue related to the government or
`governmental
`enforcement.
`
`Nor
`does
`the
`redacted
`information concern any other matters of public concern.
`The First Amendment is not a barrier to maintaining the
`redacted information under seal.
`Additionally, there are potentially improper purposes
`for which a non-party could seek access to the redacted
`
`2
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 347 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`information, such as gaining an unfair business advantage
`or gaining an unfair and prejudicial advantage in unrelated
`litigation regarding these assets. Such risks can be
`easily guarded against by keeping the redacted information
`filed under seal, and then destroying records of it after
`the conclusion of the case. Further, the redacted
`information does not bear on historical events or other
`matters of public concern. Public dissemination would only
`give the public insight into OptoLum’s competitive business
`information and their patent strategy and conduct, neither
`of which are of public concern. Since the redacted
`information bears on no matter of public concern or of
`historic significance, it should be allowed to remain under
`seal. Finally, there is no indication that the public
`already has access to the redacted information, as it was
`previously shared with third-parties only under non-
`disclosure agreements or protective orders.
`
`Dated: December 3, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Leah R. McCoy
`Leah R. McCoy
`
`3
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 347 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`265 Franklin Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Telephone: (617) 449-6593
`Facsimile: (617)607-9200
`Email: lmccoy@mccarter.com
`
`/s/ Jacob S. Wharton
`Jacob S. Wharton
`NC State Bar No. 37421
`WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
`One West 4th Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`Telephone: (336) 747-6609
`Facsimile: (336) 726-6985
`Email: jacob.wharton@wbd-
`us.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`OptoLum, Inc.
`
`ME1 38110030v.3
`
`4
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 347 Filed 12/03/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
