Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 21, 2021

Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:18-cv-11386
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureIntellectual Property
In one sentence

In Spectrum Dynamics v. General Electric, Judge Parker granted Spectrum’s request to redact confidential information from a hearing transcript.

Who this affects

Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, whose requested transcript redactions were granted; the public, whose access to the specified portions of the transcript was limited.

What happened

In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, Spectrum asked the court to redact portions of an April 28, 2021 hearing transcript before it became public. Spectrum said the passages contained details about alleged trade secrets and internal emails.

Spectrum argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm and that the requested redactions were limited. General Electric and the other defendants did not object to the request.

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application and directed the court reporter to redact the highlighted passages. The provided case metadata identifies Judge Vernon Broderick, but the ruling in the supplied document is endorsed by Judge Parker.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 21, 2021

Background

Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited asked the court to redact specified portions of the transcript of the parties’ April 28, 2021 appearance. The request covered highlighted passages on pages 24–26, 30, 33, and 35. Spectrum relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), the court’s individual practice rules, and the parties’ confidentiality and protective order.

Spectrum stated that the passages discussed confidential details about alleged trade secrets and internal emails. It argued that the information was competitively sensitive and proprietary, was designated “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the protective order, and could substantially harm Spectrum if disclosed. Spectrum also represented that the request was narrowly tailored and that the information was not relevant to the court’s resolution of any issue. Counsel for the defendants did not object.

Ruling

The application was granted. The court reporter was directed to redact the highlighted passages from the publicly available version of the transcript. The document’s ruling is endorsed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker, although the supplied case metadata identifies Judge Vernon Broderick.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.