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 an application about sealing an answer and directed the parties to discuss redactions.
General Electric Company and the other Defendants, Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, and non-party Yaron Hefetz, regarding the proposed sealed or redacted filing.
What happened
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company concerns Defendants’ request to file General Electric Company’s answer and affirmative defenses to Spectrum Dynamics’ counter-counterclaims under seal. The filing reportedly contained information the parties had labeled confidential or highly confidential under a protective order.
The Defendants argued that the information was competitively sensitive and proprietary, and that disclosure could cause substantial harm. They cited the presumption of public access to court records and cases recognizing protection for sensitive business information.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the application. He directed the Defendants to follow Rule 5.B of his individual rules and meet and confer with Spectrum Dynamics as necessary to determine whether the answer and affirmative defenses 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
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
Defendants requested permission to file under seal the Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendant General Electric Company to Plaintiff Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited’s Counter-Counterclaims. The request concerned a filing made on October 12, 2022. The Defendants stated that the document contained information designated “Highly Confidential” or “Confidential” under the parties’ stipulated confidentiality and protective order.
Application
The Defendants argued that the information included competitively sensitive and proprietary information belonging to one or both parties. They asserted that disclosure could create a substantial risk of harm. Their letter recognized that court records are generally presumed open to the public but cited authority allowing confidentiality when countervailing interests, including protection from competitive injury, justify it. The Defendants asked for permission to file the answer and affirmative defenses under seal.
Ruling
The court marked the application “GRANTED.” Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the Defendants to follow Rule 5.B of his Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. He also directed them to meet and confer with Spectrum Dynamics as necessary to determine whether the answer and affirmative defenses could be filed in redacted form on the court’s electronic filing system. The opinion does not state that the document itself was finally filed under seal or identify which portions, if any, would be redacted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.