Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Background

The parties filed multiple motions asking the court to seal filings or redact information connected to pretrial motions and related submissions. The opinion specifically discusses motions filed at Docket Nos. 390, 403, 406, 514, 515, 517, 532, 597, 611, 623, 630, 634, 645, 661, 663, 685, 686, 687, 704, 692, and 705.

The court stated that some of the sealing motions appeared overbroad and did not provide enough detail for the court to apply the three-part test for sealing discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. In some instances, the plaintiffs proposed sealing entire exhibits, including portions of expert reports, even though narrower redactions might have been sufficient. The plaintiffs generally cited trade secrets, sensitive financial information, and other confidential business information, but did not identify the basis for confidential treatment for the underlying documents. The court also found it unclear whether information concerning the defendant should remain sealed when the defendant had not requested confidential treatment for that information in its responses.

The court identified several categories of information for which there did not appear to be a basis for sealing, including witnesses’ review of documents and the extent to which that review identified trade-secret information; the defendant’s alleged interactions with the plaintiffs’ employees; certain expert reports, analyses, and conclusions; alleged disclosures and alleged misappropriation of trade secrets by the plaintiffs’ former employees; and generic descriptions of legal action and related testimony concerning privilege objections by counsel.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file amended sealing motions by January 28, 2022. For every document proposed to be sealed in full and every proposed redaction, the plaintiffs must specifically identify the basis for confidential treatment. For documents previously proposed for complete sealing, the plaintiffs must determine whether more limited redactions would be sufficient. If not, they must explain on the face of the document why the entire document should be sealed.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to state on a document’s cover page that all redactions are confidential for the same reason. It also allowed them to define categories such as trade secrets, confidential business information, or personal medical information and use symbols or colors to identify the reason next to each redaction. The court required the documents to be presented in a way that would make review of each request efficient. It further stated that information sought to be sealed must be nonpublic, confidential information in which there is a continuing privacy interest, rather than stale information.

Disposition and significance

This was a procedural order concerning sealing requests. The court required amended, more specific motions but did not decide in this order which particular documents or redactions would ultimately be sealed. The opinion text identifies Lorna G. Schofield as the district judge who issued the order, despite the separately supplied metadata naming Jed Rakoff.