EMR Inc. v. Goldberg
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-07849
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In EMR (USA Holdings) Inc. v. Goldberg, Judge Ramos granted EMR’s request to file a redacted deposition excerpt under seal.
EMR (USA Holdings) Inc. and the parties’ filings containing the discussed sensitive business information were affected by the order.
What happened
EMR (USA Holdings) Inc. asked to file a redacted excerpt from its corporate representative’s deposition. The excerpt discussed a spreadsheet containing sensitive business information, including customer names and sales and purchasing data.
EMR said the spreadsheet was designated for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order and that the customer names were trade secrets or otherwise sensitive business information. It asked to file the redacted excerpt under seal and the unredacted version electronically under seal.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted EMR’s request and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion identified as Doc. 171.
The detailed version
- EMR Inc. v. Goldberg · No. 1:18-cv-07849
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 14, 2021
Background
EMR (USA Holdings) Inc. asked the court to authorize filing a redacted excerpt of the deposition transcript of its corporate representative, Andrew Cooley. The excerpt concerned an attorneys’-eyes-only spreadsheet containing sales and purchasing information about various entities from October 2014 through September 2020.
EMR stated that it had prepared and produced the spreadsheet under a protective order because it contained confidential information under the parties’ Contribution and Sales Agreement, trade-secret information, and other sensitive financial data. EMR sought to redact the names of its customers from the publicly filed deposition excerpt. It also planned to file an unredacted copy electronically under seal, with the proposed redactions highlighted.
Ruling
The court granted EMR’s request. The endorsement states that the Clerk of Court was respectfully directed to terminate the motion identified as Doc. 171. The opinion does not provide additional terms governing the sealing or redaction beyond granting the request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.