3DT Holdings LLC v. Bard Access Systems Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:17-cv-05463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 3DT Holdings v. Bard Access Systems, Judge Liman granted page-limit requests but denied blanket sealing and required redactions and a compliant sealing motion.
3DT Holdings LLC and Bard Access Systems Inc., whose summary-judgment schedule and filing procedures were addressed; the public’s access to the filings was also affected because the court required redactions and a proper sealing motion instead of allowing blanket sealing.
What happened
3DT Holdings LLC and Bard Access Systems Inc. jointly asked to change the summary-judgment schedule, set page limits, and file their summary-judgment papers entirely under seal because they expected confidential business information to be included.
The court granted the request concerning the page limits but denied the request to file the papers under seal without further motion practice. The parties were directed to use redactions and file a sealing motion consistent with the court’s practices.
Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order in 3DT Holdings LLC v. Bard Access Systems Inc., Civil Action No. 17-CV-5463-LTS-GWG.
The detailed version
- 3DT Holdings LLC v. Bard Access Systems Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-05463
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter concerning their anticipated summary-judgment motions. They requested additional time to finalize a joint statement of undisputed facts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.1 and to adjust the summary-judgment schedule. They also agreed to page limits of 65 pages for supporting memoranda, 65 pages for opposing memoranda, and 20 pages for reply memoranda.
The parties said that the summary-judgment filings would likely contain substantial information designated confidential under an amended discovery confidentiality order. The letter stated that the designated information included contracts, documents produced by Bard, deposition-transcript material, trade secrets, technical and business information, financial and sales information, and information about products under development. 3DT did not object to Bard’s confidentiality designations.
Ruling
The court granted the application concerning the page limits. It denied the application to file all summary-judgment papers under seal without additional motion practice. The court cited the Second Circuit’s decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006), and directed the parties to use redactions and file a motion to seal consistent with the court’s Individual Practices.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.