Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-11386
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, Judge Parker denied reconsideration but granted a narrowly tailored sealing motion.
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited and the other parties to the case, particularly regarding Spectrum’s reconsideration motion, its sealed memorandum, and possible consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction.
What happened
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited asked the court to reconsider an earlier decision and separately asked to seal its supporting memorandum. The order does not describe the underlying dispute or the earlier decision.
The court denied Spectrum’s motion for reconsideration. It granted Spectrum’s motion to seal the memorandum, limiting the sealing to sensitive information under the standards discussed by the court. The clerk was directed to terminate both motions.
Judge Katharine H. Parker also reminded the parties that they could consent to her handling the pending motion to dismiss and, separately, to handling all proceedings, including dispositive motions and a jury trial. The order said withholding consent would have no adverse consequences and preserved the parties’ right to have a United States district judge decide the case.
The detailed version
- Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company · No. 1:18-cv-11386
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 23, 2023
Rulings on Spectrum’s Motions
The order addresses two motions by Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited:
- The court denied Spectrum’s motion for reconsideration at ECF No. 742. The court referred the parties to the transcript of the August 22, 2023 case-management conference for the reasons discussed there. - The court granted Spectrum’s motion to seal its memorandum supporting reconsideration at ECF No. 741. The sealing was narrowly tailored to protect sensitive information, consistent with the principles the court identified from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related decisions.
The clerk was directed to terminate both motions. The opinion text does not explain the earlier ruling that Spectrum sought to have reconsidered or identify the sensitive information in the memorandum.
Magistrate-Judge Consent
The court reminded the parties that they could consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to have Judge Parker decide the pending motion to dismiss. If they consented for that specific motion, she would resolve it as an opinion and order rather than as a report and recommendation, and the order would be directly appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court also described an option for the parties to consent to have Judge Parker conduct all proceedings, including dispositive motions and a jury trial. The order stated that withholding consent would have no adverse consequences and would not interfere with the parties’ right to have a United States district judge decide the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.