Abbott Laboratories v. Feinberg
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-08468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abbott Laboratories v. Feinberg, Judge Schofield granted defendants’ request to file redacted proposed findings under seal.
The defendants may file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with redactions and under seal; the order limits public access to the redacted information.
What happened
In Abbott Laboratories v. Feinberg, the estate’s co-executors asked permission to file proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions in redacted form and under seal.
The request concerned information identifying artworks involved in the case. The defendants argued that the proposed redactions were appropriate because earlier filings about certain artworks had been sealed, while also stating that the public’s right to know should control as trial approached.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. She found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent disclosure of information that could reduce the value of the artwork at issue and other artworks.
The detailed version
- Abbott Laboratories v. Feinberg · No. 1:18-cv-08468
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 28, 2020
Background
Defendants Nancy Feinberg, Hope Feinberg Schroy, and David Feinberg, acting as co-executors of the Estate of Carol Feinberg, requested permission to file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in redacted form and under seal. The request was made in the consolidated action brought by Abbott Laboratories.
The defendants said Abbott Laboratories had requested, and the court had permitted, sealed filings concerning the identities of certain artworks relevant to the action. They sought similar protection for their proposed trial filing. They also stated that, because the case was about to proceed to trial, the public’s right to know should control.
Ruling
The application was granted. The court permitted the defendants to file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in redacted form and under seal. Judge Schofield stated that she had reviewed the materials and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent disclosure of information that could impair the value of the artwork at issue and other artworks. The court cited CSL Silicones, Inc. v. Midsun Group Inc. as an example of permitting redactions of commercially sensitive information.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed only the filing’s redactions and sealing. The opinion does not decide the underlying dispute between Abbott Laboratories and the estate’s co-executors.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.