Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc.

S.D. New York

Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 21, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-00763·Unknown

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED BEJIN® DOC □□□ B DATE FILED:_7/21/2021 DUE NEMAN THOMAS E. BEJIN bejin@b2iplaw.com 313-244-0657 July 19, 2021 VIA ECF Hon. Mary Kay Vyskocil, U.S.D.J. Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18C New York, NY 10007 Re: | Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00763-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Vyskocil: I write pursuant to Rule 9.B of your Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases to request that Plaintiff Mersen USA EP Corp. (“Mersen”) be permitted to file its Amended Complaint under seal and publicly file a redacted version of same. The portions to be redacted represent confidential and proprietary information of Mersen. The proposed redactions are highlighted in the copy of the Amended Complaint accompanying the emailed version of this letter, which also attaches an unredacted version of the Amended Complaint for the Court’s records. Mersen’s proposed redactions are necessary and narrowly tailored to protect its confidential and proprietary information. Courts regularly find that documents containing trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and similar materials satisfy the sealing standard. Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:18-CV-4500-GHW, 2021 WL 1222122, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (internal citations omitted). That is precisely the circumstance here. Mersen seeks to redact confidential technical information concerning its thermally protected metal oxide varistors (“TPMOV”), as well as confidential business plans, including customer information. For example, Mersen seeks to redact portions of the Amended Complaint that describe confidential design elements of Mersen’s TPMOV. Mersen also seeks to redact allegations regarding Mersen’s marketing plans for its new 25mm TPMOV. Indeed, redactions that protect against competitive harm are appropriate. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., No. 15 CIV. 211 (LGS), 2021 WL 1541385, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2021). Defendants consent to Mersen’s sealing request. To the extent the Court intends to deny this sealing application, Mersen respectfully requests an opportunity to re-file its Amended Complaint to remove the confidential and proprietary information.

Bejin Bieneman PLC | 2000 Town Center, Suite 800 | Southfield, MI 48075

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas E. Bejin Thomas E. Bejin, Bejin Bieneman PLC cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

GRANTED. Plaintiff Mersen USA is permitted to file its Amended Complaint under seal and publicly file a redacted version pending further order from this Court. SO ORDERED.

7/21/2021

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED BEJIN® DOC □□□ B DATE FILED:_7/21/2021 DUE NEMAN THOMAS E. BEJIN bejin@b2iplaw.com 313-244-0657 July 19, 2021 VIA ECF Hon. Mary Kay Vyskocil, U.S.D.J. Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18C New York, NY 10007 Re: | Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00763-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Vyskocil: I write pursuant to Rule 9.B of your Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases to request that Plaintiff Mersen USA EP Corp. (“Mersen”) be permitted to file its Amended Complaint under seal and publicly file a redacted version of same. The portions to be redacted represent confidential and proprietary information of Mersen. The proposed redactions are highlighted in the copy of the Amended Complaint accompanying the emailed version of this letter, which also attaches an unredacted version of the Amended Complaint for the Court’s records. Mersen’s proposed redactions are necessary and narrowly tailored to protect its confidential and proprietary information. Courts regularly find that documents containing trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenue information, pricing information, and similar materials satisfy the sealing standard. Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 1:18-CV-4500-GHW, 2021 WL 1222122, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (internal citations omitted). That is precisely the circumstance here. Mersen seeks to redact confidential technical information concerning its thermally protected metal oxide varistors (“TPMOV”), as well as confidential business plans, including customer information. For example, Mersen seeks to redact portions of the Amended Complaint that describe confidential design elements of Mersen’s TPMOV. Mersen also seeks to redact allegations regarding Mersen’s marketing plans for its new 25mm TPMOV. Indeed, redactions that protect against competitive harm are appropriate. Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. TriZetto Grp., No. 15 CIV. 211 (LGS), 2021 WL 1541385, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2021). Defendants consent to Mersen’s sealing request. To the extent the Court intends to deny this sealing application, Mersen respectfully requests an opportunity to re-file its Amended Complaint to remove the confidential and proprietary information.

Bejin Bieneman PLC | 2000 Town Center, Suite 800 | Southfield, MI 48075

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas E. Bejin Thomas E. Bejin, Bejin Bieneman PLC cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)

GRANTED. Plaintiff Mersen USA is permitted to file its Amended Complaint under seal and publicly file a redacted version pending further order from this Court. SO ORDERED.

7/21/2021

Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc. (Mersen USA EP Corp. v. TDK Electronics Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.