Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:17-cv-00589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Medidata v. Veeva, Judge Schofield accepted redactions, denied a pre-motion conference, and set summary-judgment deadlines.
The plaintiff and defendants, whose proposed filings were accepted in redacted form and whose summary-judgment briefing schedule was set by the court.
What happened
Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. concerned the parties’ requests to file certain materials with redactions while preparing summary-judgment motions.
The court found that the proposed redactions covered sensitive commercial information protected by the parties’ confidentiality agreement. It accepted both parties’ proposed redactions.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the parties’ requests for a pre-motion conference and set deadlines and page limits for the anticipated summary-judgment filings. The order did not decide the summary-judgment motions themselves.
The detailed version
- Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00589
- Jed Rakoff
- Apr. 3, 2020
Background
The parties sought permission to file materials in redacted form. They also submitted pre-conference letters anticipating motions for summary judgment, which are motions asking the court to decide a case or claim without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over important facts.
Redactions
The court accepted both parties’ proposed redactions. It explained that the public has a strong but not absolute right to access judicial documents. The court determined that the redactions were necessary to protect information covered by the parties’ confidentiality agreement and alleged to be sensitive commercial information.
Ruling and Schedule
The court denied the parties’ requests for a pre-motion conference regarding their proposed summary-judgment motions. It ordered the plaintiff to file its summary-judgment motion, limited to 30 pages, by April 24,
- The defendants were ordered to file their opposition and cross-motion, limited to 40 pages, by May 15,
- The plaintiff’s reply and opposition to the defendants’ cross-motion were due June 5, 2020, and the defendants’ reply was due June 17,
- The parties could reallocate page limits, but neither party could exceed 60 pages of briefing in total. The court stated that the deadlines would not be adjourned absent extraordinary circumstances. This order did not resolve the anticipated summary-judgment motions on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.