The ProImmune Company, LLC v. Holista Colltech Ltd.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:20-cv-01247
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The ProImmune Company v. Holista Colltech, Judge Karas received a request to redact commercially sensitive evidence, but the provided text shows no ruling.
The ProImmune Company, LLC and Holista Colltech Ltd.; the request also concerns public access to evidence containing the parties’ commercially sensitive information.
What happened
The ProImmune Company, LLC v. Holista Colltech Ltd. concerns ProImmune’s request to file portions of evidence under seal or with redactions in support of the parties’ planned summary-judgment motions. Holista did not oppose the request.
The requested redactions covered specific contract and business information, including deadlines, purchase quantities, prices, and profits. ProImmune said disclosure could harm its competitive position and future negotiations, and it proposed narrow redactions rather than sealing entire documents.
The provided text does not show a ruling on the request. Judge Kenneth M. Karas was asked to decide the sealing request and whether to extend the deadline for filing the summary-judgment motions.
The detailed version
- The ProImmune Company, LLC v. Holista Colltech Ltd. · No. 7:20-cv-01247
- Kenneth Karas
- June 10, 2021
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a letter motion from Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant The ProImmune Company, LLC ("ProImmune"). ProImmune asked to file evidence under seal or with redactions in connection with the parties’ anticipated motions for summary judgment. It also asked to proceed without a pre-motion conference, while stating that it would attend one if Judge Karas required it.
Requested Redactions
ProImmune described four distribution agreements between the parties. It sought redactions of specifically negotiated commercial information, including product-rejection deadlines, minimum or actual order quantities, purchase prices, and profits. ProImmune said this information appeared in contracts, emails, deposition transcripts, and discovery responses and that public disclosure could harm its competitive standing and future negotiating power.
ProImmune stated that it did not seek to seal entire documents or submit fully redacted documents. It proposed redacting only the identified information in the evidence, summary-judgment briefs, supporting declarations, and statements of undisputed facts required by Local Rule 56.1. ProImmune said it was filing its own exhibits under seal with proposed redactions, but had not yet submitted Holista’s exhibits for review.
Holista’s Position and Requested Timing
The letter states that Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holista Colltech Ltd. did not oppose ProImmune’s request and did not intend to file a response. The parties asked the court to address the request promptly because their deadline for filing summary-judgment motions was June 14, 2021. They also sought permission to extend that deadline until the later of one business day after the court decided the request or June 14, 2021.
Disposition
The provided text contains the parties’ request and an endorsement showing that it was received, but it does not contain an operative ruling granting, denying, or otherwise resolving the sealing request or the requested deadline extension. Accordingly, no outcome on either request can be stated from this text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.