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 Defendants’ request to file a dismissal-motion memorandum with limited redactions, subject to reconsideration.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc., the parties and third parties who may seek access to the redacted information, and the public docket.
What happened
In ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson, Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. asked to file their memorandum supporting a partial motion to dismiss with redactions.
The requested redactions covered cash consideration, milestone payments, and royalty amounts that the court had previously allowed the parties to redact from the complaint and an exhibit. Defendants said the information was competitive business information.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application, subject to reconsideration if a party or third party moves to unseal a particular document or documents. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 24.
The detailed version
- ChemImage Corporation v. Johnson & Johnson · No. 1:24-cv-02646
- Jesse Furman
- May 6, 2024
Background
Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. requested permission to file in redacted form their memorandum supporting a partial motion to dismiss. They sought to redact references to cash consideration, milestone payments, and royalty amounts. According to the request, the court had previously allowed the parties to redact those amounts from the complaint and an exhibit because they were competitive business information.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the application. The grant was subject to reconsideration if any party or third party files a motion to unseal a particular document or documents. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 24.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning permission to file a document in redacted form; it does not decide the underlying partial motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.