Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-00008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Perrigo v. Mead Johnson: Judge Ramos granted Mead Johnson permission to file its dismissal motion redacted publicly and unredacted under seal.
Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. and Mead Johnson & Co. LLC, whose confidential business information was discussed in the filings.
What happened
Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC concerns Mead Johnson’s request about how to file its motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Mead Johnson said the motion and its supporting memorandum contained confidential, commercially sensitive business information belonging to both parties. It asked to file redacted versions publicly and unredacted versions under seal.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request, allowing the redacted filings on the public docket and the unredacted versions under seal.
The detailed version
- Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00008
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 17, 2023
Background
Mead Johnson & Co. LLC, the defendant, submitted a letter-motion asking to file its motion to dismiss the amended complaint and its related memorandum of law in redacted form. It also asked to file unredacted versions under seal, meaning they would not be publicly available on the court docket.
Mead Johnson stated that the documents contained confidential and commercially sensitive business information belonging to both Perrigo Pharma International Designated Activity Co. and Mead Johnson. It argued that public disclosure could disadvantage both parties. The letter also referred to earlier orders allowing similar redactions and sealing in the case.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Mead Johnson’s request to file the motion to dismiss and related memorandum in redacted form and to file the unredacted versions under seal. The order addressed the filing format and confidentiality of those documents; the provided text does not rule on the substance of the motion to dismiss.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.