`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`GREENSBORO DIVISION
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`CREE, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No.
`17-cv-00687-WO-JLW
`
`
`DEFENDANT CREE, INC.’S MOTION TO REDACT OF TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
`Defendant Cree, Inc. hereby moves to redact the
`Transcript of Trial Day 5 (Dkt. No. 378) at page 4, line
`3 to page 10, line 7.1
`This limited portion of the transcript concerns an
`allegation directed to an attorney for Cree. The
`allegation concerned conduct not occurring in front of
`the jury and not relevant to any issue at trial. After
`reviewing the matter, including court recordings, the
`Court declined to find that the alleged conduct had
`occurred.
`
`
`1 Plaintiff OptoLum, Inc. has indicated that it will take
`no position on the motion.
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 385 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`The allegation appearing in the cited transcript
`excerpt had no bearing on the issues tried in the case
`and has no relevance to any issue raised on appeal.
`Accordingly, the cited text serves no legitimate public
`interest.
`Moreover, the nature of the allegation merely serves
`as an inappropriate derogation of the character of the
`attorney-at-issue. “‘Professional reputation’ is an
`attorney’s lifeblood . . . . It behooves all attorneys
`to treat with respect and care the professional reputation
`of every officer of the court, and not to tarnish it
`without just cause.” Paters v. U.S., 159 F.3d 1043, 1057-
`58 (7th Cir. 1998) (discussing allegations raised in
`criminal cases). The publication of the portion of the
`transcript at issue unnecessarily, and without any basis,
`puts at issue the reputation of an attorney appearing
`before the Court.
`Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the
`Court grant its motion to redact the foregoing cited text
`from the public hearing transcript.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 385 Filed 09/01/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted on September 1, 2022.
`
`/s/ Blaney Harper
`Blaney Harper
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001-2113
`Telephone: (202) 879-3939
`Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
`Email: bharper@jonesday.com
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`
`Peter D. Siddoway
`NC State Bar No. 45647
`SAGE PATENT GROUP
`2301 Sugar Bush Road, Suite 200
`Raleigh, NC, 27612
`Telephone: (984) 219-3358
`Facsimile: (984) 538-0416
`Email: psiddoway@sagepatcom
`Attorneys for Defendant Cree, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 385 Filed 09/01/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`OPTOLUM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civ. Action No. 1:17-cv-00687
`
`v.
`CREE, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on September 1, 2022, I
`electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court
`using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to
`counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Peter D. Siddoway
`Peter D. Siddoway
`
`Case 1:17-cv-00687-WO-JLW Document 385 Filed 09/01/22 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
