ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In ChemImage v. Johnson & Johnson, Judge Furman denied without prejudice defendants’ request to seal discovery exhibits.
The defendants’ request to seal discovery materials was denied without prejudice; ChemImage, which did not oppose the request, and the public’s access to court records were also affected.
What happened
In ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson, the defendants asked to keep eleven discovery documents and related quotations under seal. They argued the materials contained sensitive business information, and ChemImage did not oppose the request.
The documents concerned business strategy, budgets, financial performance, projections, development programs, and negotiations involving Project Erie and other advanced-imaging activities. The defendants withdrew their confidentiality designation for one other document and did not object to its public filing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the sealing motion without prejudice. He stated that the defendants’ interests supported narrowly tailored redactions, but not sealing the exhibits entirely, and allowed them to file a new letter motion seeking permission to file redacted versions by October 18, 2024.
The detailed version
- ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson · No. 1:24-cv-02646
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 11, 2024
Background
The defendants moved under Judge Furman’s individual rules to keep under seal confidential and highly confidential discovery documents that ChemImage had quoted and attached to its opposition to the defendants’ motion for a protective order concerning the deposition of Ashley McEvoy. ChemImage did not oppose the requested sealing.
The defendants identified eleven documents containing nonpublic, competitively sensitive information about business strategy, development progress, potential contract renegotiations, budgets, financial performance, and forward-looking financial projections. The materials related to Project Erie, a co-development project, as well as the defendants’ broader Advanced Imaging, Robotics, and MedTech businesses. The defendants argued that disclosure could cause competitive and financial harm and that the information was not necessary for the public to understand the dispute.
The defendants also withdrew their confidentiality designation for document 00783181 and did not object to that document being filed publicly.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ motion without prejudice to filing a new letter motion by October 18, 2024, seeking permission to file the documents in redacted form. Judge Jesse M. Furman concluded that there was no basis to seal the exhibits in their entirety. At most, the defendants’ interests supported narrowly tailored redactions of the relevant portions, consistent with the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
Effect
The ruling did not require the defendants’ sensitive discovery materials to be made entirely public immediately, but it rejected the request to keep the exhibits wholly under seal. The defendants could seek permission to file redacted versions through the specified procedure and deadline.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.