Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-11386
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, Judge Parker ordered briefing on a privilege dispute and granted Spectrum’s sealing motion except in one respect.
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited and the defendants, including General Electric Company, in their discovery and sealing disputes.
What happened
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, Spectrum filed requests concerning extra pages, sealing, and defendants’ claw-back of material and sought to overcome attorney-client confidentiality under the crime-fraud exception. Defendants requested more time to respond.
The court said Spectrum’s filings did not follow the court’s rules for discovery disputes, including rules requiring a good-faith discussion and limiting initial letters. The court nevertheless ordered formal briefing on whether the attorney-client privilege should be pierced, with page limits and deadlines.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted Spectrum’s sealing motion except for its request to keep an entire 20-page letter motion under seal. Spectrum had to publicly file a version redacting confidential information while leaving nonconfidential legal arguments visible. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the four listed motions.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
- Vernon Broderick
- May 19, 2023
Background
On May 18, 2023, Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited filed three letter motions: one seeking permission to exceed page limits, one seeking to file material under seal, and one challenging defendants’ claw-back of information and seeking to overcome attorney-client privilege under the crime-fraud exception. On May 19, 2023, defendants filed a letter motion seeking additional time to respond.
Court’s rules and discovery dispute
Judge Katharine H. Parker noted that Spectrum’s submissions did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules. Those rules require a party raising a discovery dispute to first confer in good faith with the opposing party. If the dispute remains unresolved, the party may submit a letter motion of no more than three single-spaced pages explaining the dispute and requesting a conference. The rules also provide that a response should be filed within three business days, and that the court will generally address the issue at a conference before requiring formal briefing.
The court further stated that filing a motion under seal under the parties’ protective order did not exempt the parties from following the court’s rules. The court directed the parties to comply with those rules in future discovery disputes and other letter motions before Judge Parker.
Orders on briefing and sealing
Despite the filing problems, the court found that Spectrum had raised a discovery dispute requiring formal briefing. Spectrum was ordered to file a formal motion and opening brief on the attorney-client-privilege issue by May 29, 2023. Defendants’ opposition was due June 26, 2023, and Spectrum’s reply was due July 10, 2023. The opening and opposition briefs were limited to 25 double-spaced pages, and the reply was limited to 10 double-spaced pages. The court discouraged excessive exhibits.
The court reminded the parties that requests to seal confidential information must be narrowly tailored. It stated that requests to seal entire briefs and exhibits, rather than proposing narrow redactions, would be denied.
As to Spectrum’s sealing motion at ECF No. 663, the court found that the requested sealing was consistent with the governing principles. The court granted the motion except to the extent Spectrum sought to file the entirety of its 20-page letter motion at ECF No. 644 under seal. Spectrum was directed to publicly file a version of that letter motion redacting confidential information but allowing the public to see the nonconfidential legal arguments by May 26, 2023. Because Spectrum had already publicly filed the nonconfidential exhibits at ECF No. 665, it did not have to file those exhibits again.
The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 662, 663, 664, and 666. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying privilege dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.