Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 1, 2021
Docket1:18-cv-11386
StatusUnknown

This text of Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company (Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

LHOMPSON ATLANTA CINCINNATI COLUMBUS NEW YORK ~ HIN E CHICAGO CLEVELAND DAYTON WASHINGTON, D.C, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT December 28, 2020 hoe ne EP DATE FILED: VIA ECF ae Hon. Katharine H. Parker United States Magistrate Judge SO ORDERED: Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse YV th x d aL +t Lu Now York, New York 10007 HON. KATHARINE H. PARKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JU! . . . 01/01/2021 Re: Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, et al., Case No.: 18-cv-11386 (VSB) Dear Judge Parker: On behalf of Defendant General Electric Company (“GE”), we write pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), Your Honor’s Individual Rule of Practice IJ(d), and the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (the “Protective Order’) (Doc. 156) to request that one paragraph contained in Document Number 161, the transcript of the parties’ appearance before Your Honor on December 18, 2020, be redacted and filed under seal. GE respectfully requests that before the transcript is made publicly available, the court reporter be directed to redact GE’s counsel’s statement at page 18, lines 14 through 18, of the transcript. The proposed redaction is set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto. Plaintiff does not object to this request. The presumption of public access to judicial documents can be overcome if countervailing factors warrant confidentiality. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). Sealing of records may be justified to preserve “higher values,” including the need to protect an entity from competitive injury. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124; see also Tropical Sails Corp. v. Yext, Inc., No. 14- cv-7582, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49029, at *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 12) (risk of “competitive injury is sufficiently serious to warrant protection” of proprietary business information). Consistent with this, courts routinely permit sealing and redaction of competitively sensitive proprietary business information. See, e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch. Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Encyclopedia Brown Prods., Ltd. v. Home Box Office. Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (recognizing need to seal information that might “harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). Here, the discussion in the transcript (Doc. 161 at 18:14-18) concerns GE’s development of a certain product that is not publicly available. That information is competitively sensitive and proprietary information of GE that, if disclosed, would pose a substantial risk of harm to GE. and constitutes “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information under the Protective Order. (Doc. 156.). This is the sort of competitively sensitive information that courts consistently protect from disclosure. See, e.g., Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 12-cv-2650, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150239, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 7) (granting motion to seal documents containing proprietary Marla.Butler@ThompsonHine.com Fax: 404.541.2905 Phone: 404.407.3680 THOMPSON HINE LLP Two Alliance Center www. IhompsonHine.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3560 Lenox Road, Suite 1600 Phone: 404.541.2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30326-4266 Fax: 404.541.2905

‘THOMPSON HINE

Page 2 information related to product development); Encyclopedia Brown, 26 F. Supp. 2d at 612 (sealing documents reflecting sensitive trade secret information). This is particularly the case where, as here, the information to be sealed was not relevant to the Court’s resolution of any issue. Cf Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F. 3d 132, 143 (2d Cir. 2016) (denying sealing request where documents were “highly relevant to the exercise of Article III judicial power’’). GE’s request is narrowly tailored to protect GE’s highly confidential information and does not deprive the public of access to critical information. GE respectfully requests that the Court permit GE’s requested redaction in the publicly available version of the December 18, 2020 transcript (Doc. 161). Very truly yours, /s/ Marla R. Butler THOMPSON HINE LLP (pro hac vice) Jesse Jenike-Godshalk (pro hac vice) Lauren Hogan (p hoe wi 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Two Alliance Ceater wee Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 3560 Lenox Road NE, Suite 1600 hee Gia, pee Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Jesse Godshalk @ ThompsonHine.com Tel.: (404) 541-2900 , Fax: (404) 541-2905 Marla.Butler@ ThompsonHine.com Carl.Wesolowski@ThompsonHine.com Lauren.Hogan@ThompsonHine.com Brian Lanciault J effrey Metzcar 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor Discovery Place New York, New York 10017 10050 Innovation Drive

Brian.Lanciault@ ThompsonHine.com Fax (937) 430-3781 Jeff.Metzcar@thompsonhine.com Attorneys for Defendants General Electric Company, GE Healthcare, Inc., GE Medical Systems Israel Ltd., Jean- Paul Bouhnik, Sergio Steinfeld, Arie Escho, and Nathan Hermony and for Non- Party Yaron Hefetz ce: All Counsel of Record via ECF

NJPOC@MI ?DNOMD>O JA I @R SJMF Db f Y7 7 ?cW_Yh $. 7. 5*Wj *. . 053* NK@>OMPH ?SI N H@?D>OMD> >JHKJI A@M@I >@ ************************************* 7 KMJ>@@?DI BN =@AJM@ OC@CJI JM<=G@EP?B@F@N7 Acf K` U] bh] ZZ7 MDQFDI Mci f h K` UnU I cf h\ * Ni ] hY 2- . CUW_YbgUW_) I Yk EYf gYm - 43- . / - . */ 54*/ 13- BM@@I =GPH % =@MI NO@DI ) K+G+>+ =S7 I @DG A+ BM@@I =GPH) @NL+ K@O@M =M) @NL+ . 62- Mc` UbX >` Uf _Y K` UWY MYghcb) Q] f [ ] b] U / - . 6. 4- 0*4. 3*. . 6. Of UbgWf ] dh] cb NYf j ] WY7 >Uf c` Y Gi Xk] [ ) ' 0( - 1) 0, / 2, . - &+03, ) +1 . 22 @Ugh Aci f h\ Nhf YYh $0> I Yk Scf _) I Yk Scf _ . - - - 6 K\ cbY7 ' / . / ( 1/ - *- 44. @aU] ` 7 Of UbgWf ] dh] cb1/ - ; Uc` +Wca Kf cWYYX] b[ g WcbXi WhYX hY` Yd\ cb] WU` ` m UbX f YWcf XYX Vm Y` YWhf cb] W gci bX f YWcf X] b[ 8 Of UbgWf ] dh df cXi WYX Vm hf UbgWf ] dh] cb gYf j ] WY Acf ?YZYbXUbhg7 OCJHKNJI CDI @ =S7 HYbhYf 023- GYbcl McUX I @) Ni ] hY . 3- - ] bW] bbUh] ) J\ ] c 12/ - / 2. 0*02/ *34- / OCJHKNJI CDI @GGK =S7 =MDD

) 4 % , + - % 1 + . - 0 / 8$ / 8$ 3; B=8AA ( ; @86B ' @>AA ( ; @86B ' @>AA I cbY ) 4 * + & + 1 0 ) D9; 5; B 2>; @ - C<58@ ( 8A6@; ?B; >= +( += ( ; @8 I cbY / OC@>G@MF7 >U` ` ] b[ WUgY . 5 W] j ] ` . . 053) NdYWhf i a 0 ?mbUa] Wg HYX] WU` j g+ BYbYf U` @` YWhf ] W >cadUbm) h\ Y 1 Ccbcf UV` Y FUh\ Uf ] bY C+ KUf _Yf ) df Yg] X] b[ + 2 =Y[ ] bb] b[ k] h\ Wci bgY` Zcf h\ Y d` U] bh] ZZg) WUb mci 3 d` YUgY aU_Y mci f UddYUf UbWY Zcf h\ Y f YWcf X9 4 HM+ BM@BJMS HDGG@M7 BccX acf b] b[ ) Bf Y[ cf m H] ` ` Yf ) 5 M] j _] b MUX` Yf GGK) cb VY\ U` Z cZ h\ Y d` U] bh] ZZ+ <` gc k] h\ aY 6 cb h\ Y WU` ` ] g I Y] ` Bf YYbV` i a UbX =f Ub_c KY^] W Zf ca h\ Y . - Bf YYbV` i a % =Yf bghY] b ` Uk Z] f a+ BccX acf b] b[ U[ U] b+ . . CJI JM<=G@FJPMO( 7 BccX . / acf b] b[ + . 0 OC@>G@MF7

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

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merchandise Corp.
97 F. Supp. 3d 485 (S.D. New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spectrum-dynamics-medical-limited-v-general-electric-company-nysd-2021.