Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-08319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Judge Cote received Zoetis’s request to seal a license agreement exhibit.
Zoetis, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, particularly regarding public access to the license agreement submitted in connection with the discovery dispute.
What happened
In Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Zoetis asked the court to let it file a license agreement as an exhibit under seal. The agreement is central to the breach-of-contract case and says its terms are confidential.
Zoetis argued that the current dispute concerns discovery—not a decision on the merits—and that the agreement might need to become public later if the case reaches summary judgment or trial. Zoetis said the opposition itself did not need to be sealed because it had already publicly cited parts of the agreement.
The provided text is a September 29, 2022 letter to Judge Denise L. Cote requesting permission to seal Exhibit A. It does not contain a ruling or state whether Judge Cote granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH · No. 1:21-cv-08319
- Denise Cote
- Sept. 29, 2022
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a letter from counsel for Zoetis, Inc., not a court opinion or order. The letter asks the court to authorize filing Exhibit A under seal.
Background
Zoetis stated that it had filed an opposition to Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH’s September 22, 2022 letter motion to compel discovery. The opposition repeatedly cites a license agreement and attaches that agreement as Exhibit A. According to Zoetis, Section 7.2 of the agreement declares its terms confidential to the parties.
Request and Arguments
Zoetis asked to file the license agreement under seal. It acknowledged the general presumption that court proceedings and documents are publicly accessible, particularly when a document is submitted as a basis for judicial decision-making. Zoetis argued that the current dispute is procedural because it concerns whether Boehringer is entitled to certain discovery, rather than a decision on the merits of the breach-of-contract action. Zoetis also argued that the agreement may need to become public if the case proceeds to summary judgment or trial, but that disclosure was not necessary at this stage.
Zoetis stated that the opposition itself did not need to be sealed because the parties had already referred to certain provisions of the agreement in public filings.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise decided Zoetis’s request. No court disposition is included.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.