The issues to be addressed at the argument do not appear to require an in-depth discussion of confidential business information. The motion argument relates to InterDigital's motion to enforce an arbitration award and Huawei's motion to stay the proceeding in this Court.
The Protective Order entered on July 14, 2015, specifically contemplated that "he Court may determine that information alleged to be confidential is not confidential or that its disclosure is necessary for the proper disposition of the proceeding." Moreover, the Protective Order was not binding on the Court. The parties mention only that "the written submissions and the record to date reference a significant amount of confidential business information" and that the oral argument " may make reference to such confidential business information." Dkt. The parties have made no effort to provide a justification for why the courtroom should be sealed. "he presumptive right of access prevails unless it is overcome by 'specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher values and only if the sealing order is narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.'" Id.
And in the context of the presumptive First Amendment right to public access, the Court must determine whether these proceedings are the types of proceedings that are historically open to the press and the general public and "whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." Newsday LLC v. Against the common law right of public access to judicial proceedings, the court must balance competing considerations such as the privacy interests of resisting disclosure. The common law right of public access and First Amendment right of access to judicial documents and proceedings are well established.