Cimar, Ltd. v. Intelerad Medical System, Inc.

Order

The court granted Cimar’s request to file a redacted version of its motion for preliminary injunctive relief and supporting declarations on the public docket, while filing an unredacted version under seal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket 9.

Background

Cimar and Intelerad are parties to a license and services agreement concerning software used for cloud-based medical-image sharing. According to Cimar’s filing, Cimar alleges that Intelerad stole Cimar’s confidential trade secrets, used them to spread misinformation about Cimar, and underbid Cimar with Cimar’s customers. Cimar asserts contract, tort, and federal trade-secret claims.

Cimar sought to redact information concerning its customers, its contractual obligations to healthcare-provider customers, its information-technology infrastructure, cybersecurity, software architecture and version code, and steps taken to address alleged ongoing and irreparable harm. Cimar argued that disclosure could harm its competitive position and customer relationships and could increase cybersecurity risks involving private health information.

Legal standard presented in the filing

The filing described the Second Circuit’s three-part approach to sealing or redacting judicial documents. That approach considers whether the material is a judicial document subject to public access, how important the material is to the court’s exercise of judicial power and to public monitoring of the courts, and competing interests such as privacy and protection of confidential business information. The filing also stated that redactions must be necessary to protect higher values and narrowly tailored to that purpose.

Cimar argued that the requested redactions concerned information of limited value to public understanding of the dispute, including nonparty customer identities and private business and information-technology details. It also argued that disclosure could create competitive and cybersecurity harms and expose patients’ private health information. Cimar represented that its proposed redactions were minimal and would not prevent the public from understanding the case or the requested injunction.

Disposition

The court granted the request. The order itself does not separately describe the court’s analysis or make independent findings about the proposed redactions beyond granting the request and terminating the motion at Docket 9.