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 allowed a redacted Joint Final Pretrial Order to be filed under seal to protect artwork identities.
Abbott Laboratories and Carol Feinberg, whose Joint Final Pretrial Order may be filed in redacted form and under seal; the order also concerns the confidentiality and potential value of the identified artworks.
What happened
Abbott Laboratories asked the court for permission to file the parties’ Joint Final Pretrial Order with redactions and under seal. The request was made with the defendants’ consent.
The proposed redactions would conceal the identities of several artworks, including the painting involved in the case. Abbott said similar redactions had previously been allowed to prevent disclosure that could reduce the artworks’ value.
Judge Schofield granted the application. The parties may file the Joint Final Pretrial Order in redacted form and under seal because the court found the proposed redactions narrowly tailored to protect the artworks’ value.
The detailed version
- Abbott Laboratories v. Feinberg · No. 1:18-cv-08468
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
Abbott Laboratories, with the defendants’ consent, asked the court for permission to file the parties’ Joint Final Pretrial Order in redacted form and under seal. A Joint Final Pretrial Order is a filing that organizes the issues and evidence for trial. The requested redactions concerned the identities of several artworks, including the painting at issue in the case.
Reason for the Request
Abbott relied on earlier orders in the case that had allowed similar redactions. It argued that concealing the artwork identities was necessary to prevent disclosure that could impair the value of the artwork at issue and other artworks.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The parties may file their Joint Final Pretrial Order in redacted form and under seal. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to prevent disclosure that could impair the value of the artwork at issue and other artworks. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.