## Facts

- Vesta Corporation provided electronic payments and fraud-prevention technology for mobile network operators.
- Amdocs Management Limited and Amdocs, Inc. provided billing software and services to mobile network operators.
- The parties entered multiple NDAs while exploring integration projects and a possible acquisition, during which Vesta shared confidential business and technical information.
- Vesta sued alleging, among other claims, breach of NDAs and trade-secret misappropriation, asserting Amdocs used Vesta’s information to develop and sell a competing product, causing lost profits and royalties.
- In discovery, Amdocs filed Rule 37 motions seeking to exclude Vesta’s damages theories as untimely and to strike Vesta’s late-identified technical trade secrets; the court denied the damages-theory motion (with additional discovery) and granted in part the trade-secrets motion.
- Vesta then moved to (a) redact portions of a public hearing transcript and (b) seal portions of the court’s written opinion addressing the trade-secrets discovery dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether Vesta showed sufficient justification to redact portions of a publicly filed hearing transcript to protect confidential information.
2. Whether Vesta showed “compelling reasons,” supported by specific factual findings, to seal portions of a judicial opinion discussing trade-secrets discovery disputes.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to redact the hearing transcript.
- The court permitted limited redactions of specific interest rates and narrowly defined sensitive financial details where competitive harm was adequately supported and the redactions did not impair understanding of the proceeding.
- The court denied broader requested redactions supported only by generalized assertions of confidentiality, including information already disclosed in open court.
- The court denied the motion to seal portions of the written opinion, holding that Vesta failed to provide sufficiently specific, nonconclusory evidence to overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial opinions.

## Legal Principles

- Court records are subject to a strong presumption of public access, including transcripts and judicial opinions reflecting adjudicative decision-making.
- A party seeking to seal judicial records must present compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings; speculative or conclusory claims of competitive harm are insufficient.
- Sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored; courts may allow limited protection of genuinely sensitive information that is not central to public understanding of the court’s reasoning.
- Information disclosed in open court is difficult to protect retroactively absent a concrete, particularized showing of harm.

## Conclusion

The court permitted only narrowly tailored redactions of competitively sensitive financial details from a hearing transcript and refused to seal any portion of its written opinion because Vesta did not provide specific, evidence-based reasons sufficient to override the presumption of public access to judicial records.


Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt. Ltd., 312 F. Supp. 3d 966 (D. Or. 2018)