ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In ChemImage v. Johnson & Johnson, Judge Furman granted limited sealing of business-payment terms and ordered a redacted complaint publicly filed.
ChemImage Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Ethicon, Inc., and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
ChemImage Corporation asked to seal its motion seeking permission to keep limited information from its complaint and an attachment out of public view. The request followed an earlier order allowing the complaint to be filed under seal while the parties considered further redactions.
The parties agreed to remove nearly all redactions. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. asked to keep the cash consideration, milestone payments, and royalty amounts redacted to protect competitive business information, and ChemImage agreed.
The court granted the application, finding the proposed redactions narrowly tailored and sufficient to outweigh the public-access presumption. Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered ChemImage to file the redacted complaint and attachment publicly and directed the Clerk to keep the original filing under seal, subject to reconsideration if someone seeks to unseal documents.
The detailed version
- ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson · No. 1:24-cv-02646
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 26, 2024
Background
ChemImage Corporation moved for permission to seal its letter motion and attachments concerning the filing of its complaint. The request followed an earlier order granting leave to file the complaint under seal and directing the parties to discuss whether additional redactions could be removed from a permanent public filing.
Requested Redactions
The parties conferred and agreed to remove nearly all redactions from the complaint and its exhibit. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. requested continued redaction of the cash consideration, milestone payment, and royalty amounts. The letter states that the proposed redactions were intended to protect competitive business information, and that ChemImage consented to them.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect interests sufficient to outweigh the presumption that court filings should be publicly accessible. The court directed ChemImage to file the redacted complaint and attachment on the public docket within two business days. It directed the Clerk to place ECF No. 1 under seal, restricting access to the court and the parties, and to terminate the specified docket entries. The order stated that the ruling was subject to reconsideration if a party or third party filed a motion to unseal particular documents.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.