ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In ChemImage v. Johnson & Johnson, Judge Furman temporarily granted Defendants’ motion to seal deposition transcripts, reserving permanent sealing until after trial.
The order affects the parties’ use and public filing of the two deposition transcripts, particularly the confidential portions designated by the defendants.
What happened
In ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson, the defendants sought permission to file two deposition transcripts with redactions. The redacted portions had been designated highly confidential under the parties’ protective order.
The defendants said the redactions covered nonpublic, competitively sensitive business information and were limited to one quotation. ChemImage did not object to the request.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He said the court would decide after trial whether to keep the documents sealed permanently, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 131 and 132.
The detailed version
- ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson · No. 1:24-cv-02646
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 31, 2025
Background
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. asked for permission to file redacted versions of deposition transcripts for Tamara Lanier and Hani Abouhalka. ChemImage had designated portions of the transcripts for use in its case and the defendants had designated those portions as highly confidential under the parties’ protective order.
Arguments and response
The defendants stated that the redacted material contained nonpublic, competitively sensitive business information whose public disclosure could cause competitive harm. They said the proposed redaction was narrowly limited to one quotation from highly confidential discovery material and was consistent with redactions previously approved in the case. The opinion states that ChemImage did not object to the request.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. It stated that it would decide whether to keep the documents sealed permanently in connection with its ruling after trial. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 131 and 132.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.