Medacist Solutions Group, LLC v. CareFusion Solutions, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-01309
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Medacist Solutions Group v. CareFusion Solutions, Judge Furman temporarily granted CareFusion’s request to redact commercially sensitive information, reserving a final decision.
CareFusion Solutions, LLC and Medacist Solutions Group, LLC, as well as the public’s access to the specified court filings, were affected by the temporary permission to file redacted documents.
What happened
In Medacist Solutions Group, LLC v. CareFusion Solutions, LLC, CareFusion asked to redact limited information from filings related to the parties’ summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions. The proposed redactions concerned customer and potential partner identities, financial information, pricing, costs, sales, revenue, and profits.
CareFusion said the information was confidential, commercially sensitive, or protected by the parties’ confidentiality arrangements. It also said the redacted information was not necessary to evaluate the pending motions. The opinion does not describe Medacist’s response to this request, although CareFusion said some information had been designated confidential by Medacist.
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted the request to file the documents with redactions. The court said it would decide when ruling on the underlying motions whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted, and directed the clerk to terminate docket entry 95.
The detailed version
- Medacist Solutions Group, LLC v. CareFusion Solutions, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-01309
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
CareFusion asked for permission to publicly file several briefs, declarations, exhibits, and a response to a statement of facts with limited redactions. The filings concerned the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide a case without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact, and cross-motions concerning expert testimony.
CareFusion proposed redacting names and identifying information for customers, potential customers, and potential development partners. It also proposed redacting information about sales, revenue, expenses, profits or losses, pricing, quantities, and quoted amounts. CareFusion asserted that this information was nonpublic, proprietary, confidential, or competitively sensitive, and that disclosure could harm CareFusion or Medacist. It further asserted that the redacted information was not relevant or essential to evaluating the pending motions.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman temporarily granted CareFusion’s motion to file the documents with redactions. The court stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain under seal or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entry 95. The order did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment motions, the expert-evidence motions, or whether the redactions would remain in place permanently.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.