Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company

Background

Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited moved to compel General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, Inc., and GE Medical Systems Israel Ltd. to produce documents that they had withheld or reclaimed based on privilege and the crime-fraud exception. The court stated that it would issue a separate order addressing that motion. In connection with the briefing on the motion to compel, the parties filed three motions seeking to seal or redact portions of the briefing and an exhibit.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial documents—filed materials relevant to the court’s work—are presumptively available to the public under common law and the First Amendment. Materials filed with a discovery motion receive a weaker presumption of public access than materials filed with a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. A party seeking to overcome that presumption must show that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value, such as attorney-client privilege or competitively sensitive business information, and that the request is narrowly tailored. A confidentiality agreement or a party’s confidentiality designation, by itself, is not enough.

Application

The court found that the materials filed with the motion to compel were judicial documents, but that only a modest presumption of public access applied. The parties argued that the information was designated “Highly Confidential” under their stipulated protective order and that disclosure could harm their competitive interests. The court rejected the first argument but found the second more persuasive where the information was genuinely proprietary or competitively sensitive.

The court allowed ECF No. 670-1, called “Exhibit Z,” to remain under seal. Exhibit Z was a GE spreadsheet listing invention ideas, comments about the strength of those ideas, and plans for moving forward. The court also allowed all direct quotes from “Exhibit R,” which GE asserted was protected by attorney-client privilege, to remain under seal.

The court denied the parties’ broader proposed redactions because much of the information was not shown to be nonpublic or sensitive. The court specifically found that descriptions of the inventions as operating like a “ferris wheel,” presentations describing GE’s commercially available StarGuide medical-imaging device, development code names for that product, ordinary emails about accessing or sending files through “secure channels,” and quoted deposition testimony about attorney review of patent materials did not warrant sealing on the showing made.

Disposition

The parties’ joint motions to seal the briefing were granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk was directed to keep the sealed documents under seal at that time and terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 669, 687, and 705. The parties were permitted to file a renewed motion by August 21, 2023, identifying the document and page number for each additional proposed redaction and explaining specifically why the information was proprietary. If they filed no renewed motion, they were required by that date to publicly file the briefing with only direct quotes from Exhibit R redacted and Exhibit Z remaining under seal. If they did neither, the court stated that it would direct the documents to be unsealed.