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 v. General Electric, Judge Broderick granted defendants’ request to seal responses and exhibits containing claimed sensitive proprietary information.
The ruling affects the defendants’ written responses and exhibits, the plaintiff, and public access to those court filings. The order permits sealing but directs the defendants to consider filing redacted versions publicly.
What happened
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, the defendants asked for permission to file written responses and exhibits under seal. The materials responded to questions in a March 9, 2022 sealed order and included information designated confidential under the parties’ protective order.
The defendants argued that the materials contained competitively sensitive and proprietary information whose disclosure could cause substantial harm. They cited the general presumption of public access to court records and exceptions for protecting confidential business information.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application. He directed the defendants to follow his individual rules and confer with the plaintiff as needed to determine whether the written responses could instead be filed publicly with redactions.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 21, 2022
Background
The defendants requested permission to file under seal their written responses to questions in the court’s March 9, 2022 sealed order and Exhibits B through E to a supporting declaration. The materials had been designated confidential or highly confidential under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality and protective order. The request was made in a letter dated March 18, 2022.
Request and Reasoning
The defendants argued that the materials referred to competitively sensitive and proprietary information belonging to one or both parties. They asserted that disclosure could create a substantial risk of harm. The letter cited the presumption of public access to judicial documents and cases recognizing that protection of confidential business information and prevention of competitive injury can justify sealing.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick marked the application “GRANTED.” The order also directed the defendants to follow Rule 5.B of the judge’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases and to meet with the plaintiff as necessary to determine whether the written responses could be filed on the public docket in redacted form. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute between the parties.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.