Precision Medicine Group, LLC v. Blue Matter, LLC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-02974
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Precision Medicine Group v. Blue Matter, Judge Gardephe granted some sealing requests, denied others, and ordered six exhibits unsealed.
The order affected Precision Medicine Group, Precisionadvisors Group, Precision Medicine Group Holdings, Blue Matter, nonparty Jose Jaregui, and public access to the identified court filings. The six specified exhibits were ordered unsealed.
What happened
Precision Medicine Group, Precisionadvisors Group, and Precision Medicine Group Holdings asked to seal exhibits filed with the parties’ summary-judgment materials in this trade-secrets dispute. Blue Matter and nonparty Jose Jaregui also filed sealing motions, and the motions were not opposed as to the plaintiffs’ request.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for the documents listed in their “Category 1” table. It denied the motion for the “Category 2” documents, which included materials concerning Precision’s acquisition of ISA’s market-access business. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown why sealing those documents entirely was necessary or why the asserted competitive harm outweighed the public’s right to access court records.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe directed the clerk to terminate the three sealing motions and to unseal six exhibits, Docket Nos. 149-7 through 149-12. The provided opinion text is incomplete regarding the precise disposition of the defendant’s and Jose Jaregui’s motions.
The detailed version
- Precision Medicine Group, LLC v. Blue Matter, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02974
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 21, 2023
Background
The parties filed renewed motions to seal or redact documents submitted with cross-motions for summary judgment in a trade-secrets dispute. The plaintiffs sought permission to file numerous exhibits under seal. The endorsement also refers to a sealing motion by Blue Matter and a motion by nonparty Jose Jaregui.
Plaintiffs’ motion
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion as to the documents listed in the table titled “Category 1” in the plaintiffs’ memorandum of law. The court denied the motion as to the documents listed in the “Category 2” table.
The Category 2 materials included two documents containing what the plaintiffs described as sensitive and confidential financial information concerning Precision’s acquisition of ISA and its market-access business, including deferred-consideration payment methodologies. The materials included an equity purchase agreement and a letter from the plaintiffs’ founder to the target company’s founder. The plaintiffs argued that documents containing these types of information are routinely sealed.
The court concluded that this showing was inadequate. It stated that, even assuming some information in the documents could properly be sealed, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that sealing the documents in their entirety was narrowly tailored to achieve a legally recognized higher purpose. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not explained how disclosure would cause a competitive disadvantage or why the risk of harm outweighed the public’s right of access to judicial documents.
Order
The court stated that Blue Matter’s motion and Jose Jaregui’s motion were granted, but the provided opinion text is truncated immediately after that phrase and does not show whether the court specified any limitation on those grants. The court directed the clerk to terminate Docket Nos. 182, 184, and 188 and to unseal and make visible Docket Nos. 149-7, 149-8, 149-9, 149-10, 149-11, and 149-12.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.