Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. ASMedia Technology, Inc.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-09260
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bell Semiconductor v. ASMedia, Judge Caproni granted ASMedia’s request to keep redactions in its dismissal-motion papers.
ASMedia Technology, Inc.’s supporting memorandum and declaration may remain redacted; Bell Semiconductor, LLC did not obtain a ruling requiring the redactions to be removed.
What happened
Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. ASMedia Technology, Inc. concerned ASMedia’s request to file redacted versions of its memorandum and declaration supporting its motion to dismiss.
ASMedia filed the request after Bell Semiconductor said it was reviewing the proposed redactions. The court gave Bell Semiconductor until January 25, 2023, to respond, but Bell Semiconductor did not respond.
Judge Caproni granted ASMedia’s request, allowing the memorandum and declaration to remain redacted, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the related motion.
The detailed version
- Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. ASMedia Technology, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09260
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
ASMedia Technology, Inc. asked the court for permission to file redacted versions of its memorandum of law and declaration supporting its motion to dismiss. On January 23, 2023, ASMedia reported that Bell Semiconductor, LLC had said it was reviewing the proposed redactions.
On January 24, 2023, the court ordered Bell Semiconductor to respond to ASMedia’s request by January 25. The opinion states that Bell Semiconductor had not responded by the time of the order.
Court’s Reasoning
The court noted that courts in the Southern District of New York have consistently treated confidential commercial information—including confidential research, internal business documents, and information about a business’s operations—as appropriate for redaction or sealing.
Disposition
The court granted ASMedia’s request. ASMedia’s memorandum and declaration supporting its motion to dismiss may remain redacted. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at Dkt. 25.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.