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 ordered the parties to meet about redacting defendants’ proposed confidential filings.
The defendants General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, Inc., GE Medical Systems Israel Ltd., Jean-Paul Bouhnik, Sergio Steinfeld, Arie Eshco, and Nathan Hermony, and non-party Yaron Hefetz.
What happened
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, the defendants asked to file written responses and exhibits under seal because they contained information designated confidential under a protective order.
The defendants said the materials included competitively sensitive and proprietary information that could cause substantial harm if disclosed. They also asked to file certain native-file exhibits under seal by email.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the parties to follow his rules and meet and confer about whether the written responses could instead be filed with redactions on the public docket. The text does not clearly state whether the court granted or denied the requests to seal or to file exhibits by email.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 6, 2022
Background
Defendants General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, Inc., GE Medical Systems Israel Ltd., Jean-Paul Bouhnik, Sergio Steinfeld, Arie Eshco, and Nathan Hermony, along with non-party Yaron Hefetz, requested permission to file under seal their written responses to questions in the court’s March 24, 2022 sealed order and related exhibits. They also requested permission to file certain exhibits containing native files under seal and by email.
The request stated that the materials contained information designated “Highly Confidential” or “Confidential” under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality and protective order. It asserted that the materials included competitively sensitive and proprietary information belonging to one or both parties and that disclosure could create a substantial risk of harm. The request cited the presumption of public access to judicial documents and cases recognizing that protection of competitively sensitive business information can justify sealing.
Court’s Action
The April 6, 2022 order directs the parties to follow Rule 5.B of Judge Broderick’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases and to meet and confer as necessary to determine whether the written responses can be filed in redacted form on the electronic docket. The text does not expressly state that the requests to seal were granted or denied, and it does not expressly state whether permission was granted to file native-file exhibits by email.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.