Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-04814
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Rouviere v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part a request to seal medical-device records.
Howmedica Osteonics Corp., the plaintiffs, the parties’ access to the confidential filings, and the public’s access to the court documents.
What happened
In Rouviere v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Howmedica Osteonics Corp. asked the court to seal confidential records connected to its defense of medical-device product-liability claims involving a hip replacement system.
The records included the device’s design file, regulatory file, manufacturing records, and an engineering expert’s report. Howmedica argued that public disclosure could give competitors access to its design, testing, manufacturing, research, and marketing information. The plaintiffs did not oppose the revised sealing request.
The court granted in part and denied in part the request. Judge Lewis J. Liman allowed the design file, regulatory file, and manufacturing records to be sealed in full, but required most of the expert report to be redacted while leaving its table of contents and specified sections available.
The detailed version
- Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-04814
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 20, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs asserted medical-device product-liability claims arising from implantation of the MDM modular dual-mobility hip system. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. asked the court to seal exhibits that the plaintiffs had filed or intended to file in opposition to Howmedica’s summary-judgment motion. The requested materials included Howmedica’s design file, its internal regulatory file concerning regulatory clearance, manufacturing records, and an engineering expert’s report discussing those materials.
The documents had been produced to the plaintiffs in discovery under a protective order. Howmedica argued that public disclosure could cause competitive harm by revealing confidential design, engineering, testing, manufacturing, research, development, and marketing information. It also argued that the materials were filed in unusually large volumes, that practical redaction was not possible for the files, and that most of the materials were not necessary to the court’s decision. The plaintiffs did not oppose the revised sealing request.
Court’s Ruling
The court stated that the request to seal certain motion-related exhibits was granted in part and denied in part. It permitted Howmedica to seal the design file, the internal regulatory file, and the manufacturing records in full. For the expert report, the court required the report to be filed with everything redacted except the table of contents and Sections 1, 1.1, 1.2, and 4, because it was not clear what harm public disclosure of those portions would cause. The order was signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.