Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-11386
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, Judge Parker granted General Electric’s request to seal a motion and exhibits containing highly confidential and privileged information.
General Electric Company and public access to the motion and exhibits covered by the sealing request.
What happened
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, General Electric asked the court for permission to file under seal a letter motion and its exhibits concerning a dispute over information that plaintiffs sought to have returned. The request relied on a confidentiality order in the case.
General Electric said the materials contained information it had designated highly confidential and information covered by its ongoing claim of attorney-client privilege. The filing also explained that courts may restrict public access to protect confidential business information from competitive harm.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application to file the motion and exhibits under seal. The ruling addressed access to these court filings and did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
- Vernon Broderick
- July 1, 2021
Background
General Electric Company (GE) requested permission to file under seal a letter motion opposing plaintiffs’ “Claw-Back Challenge Letter” and the motion’s exhibits. GE made the request under the court’s individual practice rules and the parties’ stipulated confidentiality and protective order.
The letter identifies the materials as discussing or reflecting information that GE had designated “Highly Confidential” under the protective order. It also states that the materials were subject to GE’s ongoing assertion of attorney-client privilege, which protects certain confidential communications between a lawyer and client.
Court’s Analysis
The filing explains that judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible, but that presumption may be overcome when confidentiality is needed to protect higher interests. It identifies protection from competitive harm and protection of proprietary business information as possible grounds for sealing records. The filing also cites the protection of information covered by privilege.
Ruling
The court granted GE’s application to file the letter motion and exhibits under seal. The opinion text does not provide a separate discussion of which specific pages or materials were sealed or redacted. Judge Katharine H. Parker’s filing notation states “APPLICATION GRANTED.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.