Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:17-cv-00589
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Medidata Solutions v. Veeva Systems, Judge Schofield granted in part a request to keep confidential business information sealed.
Medidata Solutions, Inc., MDSOL Europe Limited, Veeva Systems Inc., and the public docket were affected by the ruling on redactions and sealing.
What happened
In Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc., Medidata asked to keep certain information sealed in proposed pretrial filings and jury instructions. The information included financial calculations, descriptions of trade secrets, and other business information.
The court granted in part the motion to seal. It found that footnote 14 of the proposed jury instructions did not appear to contain confidential information and required the parties to file a public version without redacting that footnote by February 28, 2022.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 748. The order did not state that the remaining requested redactions were denied.
The detailed version
- Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-00589
- Jed Rakoff
- Feb. 23, 2022
Background
Medidata Solutions, Inc. and MDSOL Europe Limited asked the court to allow redactions in the parties’ forthcoming Joint Amended Final Pretrial Order and Joint Proposed Jury Instructions. The requested redactions covered calculations by Medidata’s damages expert based on sensitive financial information, descriptions of trade secrets, and other confidential business information. The request also included footnote 14 of the proposed jury instructions because Veeva had designated the information as confidential under a protective order. The motion stated that Veeva joined the request to seal portions of the damages statement.
Ruling
The court stated that the motion to seal was granted in part. It determined that footnote 14 did not appear to contain confidential information. The court ordered the parties to re-file a public version of the Joint Proposed Jury Instructions without redacting footnote 14 by February 28, 2022. The order did not separately state a disposition for each of the remaining requested redactions. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 748.
Effect
Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s order required public disclosure of the contents of footnote 14 while addressing the sealing request as a pretrial filing matter. The order did not decide the underlying trade-secret or damages disputes.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.