Medidata Solutions, Inc. v. Veeva Systems Inc.

Opinion

IK Ee K Ee R Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP 633 Battery Street VAN N EST San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 re 415 391 5400 & P E T E R S keker.com Khari J. Tillery (415) 773-6621 ktillery@keker.com

July 1, 2020

The request to retain all the current redactions and sealing The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield in Medidata's Submissions is GRANTED. United States District Court Southern District of New York Dated: July 2, 2020 . 40 Foley Square New York, New York New York, NY 10007 unre. saree □□□□□□ JUDGE

Re: Medidata Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Veeva Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00589

Dear Judge Schofield: Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rule I.D.3 and the parties’ stipulation governing motions to seal in connection with summary-judgment briefing, Dkt. 322, Defendant Veeva Systems Inc. (“Veeva’) respectfully submits this letter motion to seal Veeva and third-party confidential information in Plaintiffs Medidata Solutions, Inc.’s and MDSOL Europe Limited’ s (“Medidata’s”) summary judgment submissions. Dkts. 312-318, 343-51. Similar to Medidata’s request vis a vis Veeva’s submissions,’ Veeva requests that the Court retain all current redactions of Veeva and third-party confidential information in Medidata’s submissions. There is a “presumption of access” to judicial documents. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). That presumption, however, is overcome “if ‘countervailing factors’ in the common law framework or ‘higher values’ in the First Amendment framework so demand.” /d. at 124. Factors relevant to this determination include “the extent of the closure or sealing sought; the potential damage . . . from disclosure; the significance of the public interest at stake; the extent to which [a party] intend [s] to prove [its] case by relying on documents [it] seek[s] to withhold from public scrutiny; [and] whether the particular matter is integral or

Earlier today, Medidata filed a letter brief requesting that “the Court permit the retention of all current redactions and sealing in Veeva’s Submissions,” except for Exhibit 5 to the Dkts. 331, 334, and 341 (which reflect the sealed, public, and errata versions of the same declaration). Dkt. 371 (Medidata Letter Motion) at 1. While there are significant substantive disputes about whether any of this information is Medidata confidential or trade secret, these disputes are not suitable for resolution in the context of a motion to seal.

The Honorable Lorna G. Schofield July 1, 2020 Page 2

tangential to the adjudication.” Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., No. 07 CIV. 2014 (SWK), 2008 WL 199537, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008). Here, Medidata’s submissions contain references to certain internal Veeva information, and to private personal information of third parties, which is often extensively intermingled with information that Medidata claims is confidential or trade secret. The internal Veeva and third-party information noted above is of the type that this Court routinely recognizes as meriting sealing. /d. (“competitive disadvantage” is “comparable to other harms that courts have recognized as potentially sufficient to defeat the presumption in favor of disclosure’); see also Anderson v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 16CV1051GBDKHP, 2020 WL 1047054, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2020) (personal information such as home address and salary is “the type of information that should be shielded from public disclosure”). Further, given the breadth of Medidata’s claims and the manner in which it has presented its arguments, it is difficult to disentangle the information that Medidata claims to be confidential and/or trade secret and the information in which Veeva or third parties have a legitimate confidentiality interest. Accordingly, Veeva respectfully requests that the Court permit the continued sealing of Veeva and third-party information identified in Medidata’s submissions. Respectfully submitted, KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP

Khari J. Tillery jr cc: All counsel of record

Page 3

Appendix of Appendix of Parties and Attorneys of Record in Accordance with Individual Rule I.D.3

Medidata Solutions, Inc. and Veeva Systems, Inc. MDSOL Europe Limited Patrick Arnett Christa Anderson

David Nelson Draper Kevin Joseph Bruno

Jordan Mitchell Heinz Elizabeth Egan

Joseph Allen Loy Andrew T. Hambelton

Claudia Elizabeth Ray Reid P. Mullen

Yosef J. Riemer Divya Musinipally

Benjamin A. Yaghoubian Jay Rapaport

Benjamin David Rothstein

Khari J. Tillery

Molly Caldwell Villagra