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 v. Boehringer, the defendant asked to seal exhibits, but Judge Cote's text records a request rather than a ruling.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, Zoetis, Inc., and nonparties whose business, settlement, or contact information appeared in the exhibits could be affected by the requested sealing and redactions.
What happened
Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH concerns the defendant's request to keep certain discovery exhibits partly or completely from public view.
Boehringer asked to redact payment, royalty, financial, and personal contact information in Exhibit A. It asked to seal Exhibits B and C entirely because they involved nonparties and included confidential business or settlement information.
The provided text is a letter motion to Judge Denise L. Cote, not a court order. It does not state whether the court granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH · No. 1:21-cv-08319
- Denise Cote
- Dec. 16, 2022
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a December 15, 2022 letter motion submitted by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH (identified as “BIV”). It asks the court to seal or redact exhibits filed in support of BIV’s opposition to Zoetis, Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment. The text does not contain a court ruling or state how Judge Denise L. Cote decided the motion.
Requested Sealing and Redactions
BIV asked to submit Exhibit A with limited redactions and Exhibits B and C in fully redacted form. According to the letter, the exhibits were produced in discovery under a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order.
BIV described Exhibit A as a license agreement between BIV and Merial, an entity that BIV later acquired. BIV sought to redact information about payments, royalties, and financial matters under Article 4, arguing that disclosure could reveal current business practices that a competitor might exploit. BIV also sought to redact personal contact information, notice addresses, and telephone numbers that it said were not publicly available.
BIV stated that Exhibit B was a license agreement between entities that were not parties to the litigation. It described Exhibit C as a settlement agreement between nonparties containing a confidentiality clause that required its terms not to be disclosed. BIV argued that the privacy interests of nonparties and the confidential business information in those agreements supported sealing them in full.
Disposition
The letter ends by asking the court to grant the motion to seal. The provided text does not state that the motion was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.