Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 27, 2020

Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Judge
Jed Rakoff
Docket
1:17-cv-00589
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Medidata Solutions v. Veeva Systems, Judge Schofield granted Medidata’s request to file specified summary-judgment materials with redactions.

Who this affects

Medidata Solutions, Inc., MDSOL Europe Limited, Veeva Systems Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the specified court filings.

What happened

Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. concerns Medidata’s request to redact portions of its forthcoming motion for summary judgment and related filings.

Medidata said the redactions would protect trade secrets and other confidential business information, including research-and-development details, financial information, and information about protecting its trade secrets. It also said Veeva could access the unredacted filings.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The order permitted the listed information to be filed in redacted form and required Medidata to ensure that Veeva could access unredacted versions.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00589
Judge
Jed Rakoff
Date
Apr. 27, 2020

Background

Plaintiffs Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Limited, referred to together in the letter as “Medidata,” asked permission to file portions of a forthcoming motion for summary judgment and related materials in redacted form. The requested materials included the motion, several declarations and exhibits, and a statement of undisputed material facts.

Requested Redactions

Medidata sought to redact information it described as trade secrets and other confidential business information. The letter identified descriptions of the trade secrets at issue, financial details concerning research and development that produced those trade secrets, and information about how Medidata safeguarded them. Medidata also said that it would redact information designated confidential by defendant Veeva Systems Inc. so Veeva could ask that the material remain sealed.

Medidata proposed filing public versions with the requested information redacted and versions accessible to the court and counsel with the information highlighted. The letter stated that the redactions would be limited to passages specifically referring to protected information.

Legal Standard and Ruling

The letter relied on the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It argued that this presumption could be overcome when legitimate privacy interests, including protection of business information that could harm a litigant’s competitive position, outweighed public access. It also argued that the request was narrowly tailored and concerned material subsidiary to a pretrial motion.

The application was granted. Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s order permitted the listed information to be filed in redacted form and directed Medidata to ensure that Veeva could access unredacted versions of the submissions.

Effect

The order addressed access to and redaction of court filings. It did not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment motion or the merits of the trade-secret dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.