Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs, Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Limited, asked for permission to file several summary-judgment submissions and related declarations and exhibits in redacted form. They sought to redact information they identified as trade secrets and other confidential business information, including descriptions of the trade secrets, financial details about related research and development, and information about how the trade secrets were protected.

The plaintiffs acknowledged the public’s general interest in access to court proceedings and the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public. They argued that narrowly tailored redactions were justified because disclosure could cause serious harm to their competitive position. They also stated that some information had been designated confidential by Veeva and would be redacted so Veeva could ask that it remain sealed.

Requested Redactions

The requested filings included the plaintiffs’ reply memorandum supporting their motion for summary judgment and opposing Veeva’s motion for summary judgment; the plaintiffs’ responses to Veeva’s and their own statements of undisputed material facts under Rule 56.1; the declaration of Joseph Loy and its exhibits; and the declaration of Jim Davies and Exhibit A.

The plaintiffs stated that they would file public versions with the proposed redactions and versions viewable only by the court and counsel with the redacted information highlighted. They also said that Veeva would be able to access unredacted versions.

Ruling

The court’s order states: “APPLICATION GRANTED.” Judge Lorna G. Schofield permitted the plaintiffs to file the listed submissions in redacted form. The order required the plaintiffs to ensure that the defendant could access unredacted versions of those submissions. The order did not decide the parties’ summary-judgment motions or the underlying trade-secret dispute.