Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Background

The provided text is a joint motion by Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Limited, together called “Medidata,” and Veeva Systems Inc. The motion asks the court to maintain specified redactions in Medidata’s letter motion at Docket 268, Veeva’s response at Docket 269, and related exhibits. The parties stated that they had met and conferred, that neither opposed the other’s request, and that each reserved the right to challenge the confidentiality of the information later.

Medidata’s request

Medidata asked to retain redactions covering portions of the parties’ letters and entire exhibits. It described the material as including deposition transcripts, expert reports, and information produced in the litigation that had been designated “Highly Confidential” under the parties’ stipulated protective order. Medidata asserted that the material contained sensitive and competitively valuable information about its product development, marketing, and sales plans, as well as trade secrets and confidential business information.

Medidata argued that the material was not a “judicial document” because it concerned a discovery-related motion and was not relevant or useful to the judicial decision-making process. Alternatively, Medidata argued that its interest in protecting confidential information outweighed the public’s limited interest in access to the material.

Veeva’s request

Veeva separately asked the court to maintain redactions in the parties’ letters and exhibits. Veeva asserted that the redacted material concerned confidential information about its business and litigation processes. It relied on the court’s authority to issue a protective order for good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including protection for trade secrets and confidential research, development, or commercial information.

Veeva argued that the materials were discovery-related and therefore should not be treated as judicial documents. It alternatively argued that, even if they were judicial documents, Veeva’s confidentiality interests outweighed the public’s more limited interest in a nondispositive discovery motion concerning a briefing schedule. Veeva described some redactions as concerning product development and others as concerning internal processes for securing systems and information in anticipation of litigation.

Disposition

The provided text does not contain a clear, express disposition of either request. It is formatted as a joint submission to Judge Robert W. Lehrburger and includes a “SO ORDERED” notation, but it does not state in words that either motion was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. The text therefore does not establish the court’s precise ruling.