GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-04826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In GE Transportation Parts v. Central Railway, Judge Oetken granted the plaintiff’s request to seal four exhibits.
The ruling affects Wabtec Transportation Systems, LLC, Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC, and public access to the specified exhibits. Wabtec may file Exhibits M, O, X, and JJ under seal as authorized by the court.
What happened
In GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC, the plaintiff, Wabtec Transportation Systems, LLC, formerly GE Transportation Parts, LLC, asked to file certain exhibits under seal or with redactions. The request concerned materials submitted in connection with the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
The parties agreed to limit redactions to confidential pricing, cost, and detailed technical information. The plaintiff said those redactions were narrowly tailored to protect sensitive business information.
Judge James Oetken granted the plaintiff’s request. The plaintiff may file unredacted Exhibits M and O under seal and may file Exhibits X and JJ under seal.
The detailed version
- GE Transportation Parts, LLC v. Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-04826
- James Oetken
- Jan. 31, 2022
Background
Wabtec Transportation Systems, LLC, formerly GE Transportation Parts, LLC, identified itself as the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant. It asked the court for permission to file certain exhibits under seal or in redacted form. The exhibits supported Wabtec’s motion for summary judgment and its opposition to Central Railway Manufacturing, LLC’s motion for summary judgment.
Wabtec stated that the materials contained confidential or highly confidential pricing terms, cost information, and detailed technical information. The parties agreed to limit proposed redactions to those categories and represented that the redactions were intended to protect sensitive business information while remaining as limited as possible.
Court’s Ruling
The court granted the plaintiff’s request. It authorized the plaintiff to file unredacted Exhibits M and O under seal and to file Exhibits X and JJ under seal. The order did not rule on the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
Effect
The ruling permits the specified exhibits to be filed under seal, limiting their public availability on the court docket. It does not resolve the underlying dispute or determine which party should prevail on summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.