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 v. General Electric, Judge Broderick granted defendants’ request to file a hearing-slide appendix under seal because it contained assertedly sensitive proprietary information.
The defendants seeking to seal Appendix 1, the parties whose confidential designations are implicated, and the public’s access to that appendix.
What happened
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, the defendants asked the court to let them file Appendix 1 to a letter about slides from a March 22, 2022 hearing under seal. They said the appendix contained information designated confidential under the parties’ protective order.
The defendants argued that the appendix included competitively sensitive and proprietary information belonging to one or both parties, and that disclosure could cause substantial harm. The letter cited the general presumption that court records are public and the recognized protection for confidential business information.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application. He also directed the parties to follow his civil-case rules and meet and confer as needed to determine whether written responses could be filed in redacted form on the court’s electronic filing system.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
The defendants submitted a letter requesting permission to file Appendix 1 to their letter concerning slides from a March 22, 2022 hearing under seal. The request was made under Rule 5.B of Judge Broderick’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases. The defendants stated that Appendix 1 contained information designated “Highly Confidential” or “Confidential” under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality and protective order.
The defendants identified the information as assertedly competitively sensitive and proprietary information of one or both parties. They argued that public disclosure could create a substantial risk of harm, including competitive injury. The letter also discussed the general presumption of public access to judicial documents and the protection that courts may provide for higher interests such as confidential business information.
Ruling
The court granted the application to file Appendix 1 under seal. The court’s endorsement also directed the parties to follow Rule 5.B of the Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases and to meet and confer as necessary about whether written responses could be filed in redacted form on the electronic filing system.
The opinion text does not provide a separate, detailed explanation of the court’s reasoning beyond the granting endorsement and the direction concerning possible redactions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.