Xidrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies

D. Utah

Xidrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies

DecidedAugust 19, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-00430

StatusUnknown

This text of Xidrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies (Xidrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Xidrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies, (D. Utah 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

XIDRONE SYSTEMS, INC., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE SEALING INFORMATION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00430-AMA-DBP

FORTEM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen

Defendant. Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Pursuant to DUCivR 5-3(b), Defendant Fortem Technologies, Inc. moves the court to keep under seal certain sensitive business information filed by Plaintiff XiDrone Systems, Inc. in an exhibit to its Claim Construction Brief.1 As set forth, the court grants the motion. “’Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records,’ but this ‘right is not absolute.’”2 A party “may overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records by demonstrating the pages contain ‘sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.’”3 Here, Defendant argues the exhibit contains sensitive business information. Specifically, the PowerPoint contains “future proprietary business plans”, certain “product areas of improvements”, “sensitive financial information”, and information regarding “strategic partnerships and updates on research and development.”4 The court finds this is sensitive

1 ECF No. 38. 2 Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)). 3 Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc., 820 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 4 Mtn. p. 3. business information that might harm Defendant, and therefore, may be sealed. Further, Defendant seeks to seal the exhibit, rather than those portions of Plaintiffs brief that make a passing reference to the PowerPoint. The court finds this is a narrow request. Finally, there is little interest in the public accessing information such as this. As such, it may be sealed. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

DATED this 19 August 2024.

Dust Pyad ° United Stafes Mapistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH

XIDRONE SYSTEMS, INC., MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE SEALING INFORMATION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00430-AMA-DBP

FORTEM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen

Defendant. Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead

Pursuant to DUCivR 5-3(b), Defendant Fortem Technologies, Inc. moves the court to keep under seal certain sensitive business information filed by Plaintiff XiDrone Systems, Inc. in an exhibit to its Claim Construction Brief.1 As set forth, the court grants the motion. “’Courts have long recognized a common-law right of access to judicial records,’ but this ‘right is not absolute.’”2 A party “may overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial records by demonstrating the pages contain ‘sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.’”3 Here, Defendant argues the exhibit contains sensitive business information. Specifically, the PowerPoint contains “future proprietary business plans”, certain “product areas of improvements”, “sensitive financial information”, and information regarding “strategic partnerships and updates on research and development.”4 The court finds this is sensitive

1 ECF No. 38. 2 Colony Ins. Co. v. Burke, 698 F.3d 1222, 1241 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007)). 3 Deherrera v. Decker Truck Line, Inc., 820 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 4 Mtn. p. 3. business information that might harm Defendant, and therefore, may be sealed. Further, Defendant seeks to seal the exhibit, rather than those portions of Plaintiffs brief that make a passing reference to the PowerPoint. The court finds this is a narrow request. Finally, there is little interest in the public accessing information such as this. As such, it may be sealed. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

DATED this 19 August 2024.

Dust Pyad ° United Stafes Mapistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Xidrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xidrone-systems-v-fortem-technologies-utd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack