Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company

Opinion

LAW OFFICES GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. NEIL F. GREENBLUM PATENT, COPYRIGHT AND TRADEMARK MATTERS HARRY J. GWINNELLO 1980 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE ym □□ ARNOLD TURK A RESTON, VA 20191-1411 SOK □□□ HONGO STEPHEN M. ROXLANCE 0 TEL: (703) 716-1191 IEHFREY □□□□□□□□ ROBERT MUELLER FAX: (703) 716-1180 GARY M, JACOBS 0 WILLIAM Bostick EMAIL: gbpatent@gbpatent.com SHAWN □□ HAMIDIMA, PRD. www.gbpatent.com Chap E CORKA BRUCE H. STONER, JR. seein CHUONG □□ □□□□□□ □ USDC SDNY consti □□ DOCUMENT — ELECTRONICALLY FILED * ADMITTED TO A BAR DOC #: REGISTERED PATENT AGEN Ph.D. D ATE FILED: 0472372021 □□□□□□□ The court reporter is directed to red April 22, 2021 the passages highlighted on pages 2 VIA ECF 30-32 and 37, as set forth in Exhibit Hon. Katharine H. Parker APPLICATION GRANTED United States Magistrate Judge, Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse Ketan 500 Pearl Street, Room 750 Hon. Katharine H. Parker, U.S.M. New York, New York 10007 04/23/2021 Re: Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. GE; Case No.: 18-cv-11386 (VSB) Dear Magistrate Judge Parker: We represent Plaintiff Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited (“Spectrum”) in the above- captioned matter. On behalf of Spectrum Defendant General Electric Company (“GE”), we write pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), Your Honor’s Individual Rule of Practice III(d), and the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (the “Protective Order’) (Doc. 156) to request that several passages contained in Document Number 221, the transcript of the parties’ appearance before Your Honor on March 31, 2021, be redacted and filed under seal. The parties jointly respectfully request that before the transcript _is made publicly available, the court reporter be directed to redact the passages highlighted on pages 20, 30-32 and 37, as set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto. 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.

Hon. Katharine H. Parker April 22, 2021 Page -2- 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 discussions in the transcript concern GE’s development of a certain product that is not publicly available and confidential details of Spectrum’s alleged trade secrets and internal emails. This information is competitively sensitive and proprietary information of GE or Spectrum, respectively, that, if disclosed, would pose a substantial risk of harm to GE or Spectrum, 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 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’). The parties’ request is narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential information and does not deprive the public of access to critical information. The parties respectfully request that the Court permit the requested redactions in the publicly available version of the March 31, 2021 transcript (Doc. 221). Respectfully submitted, /Neil F. Greenblum/ Neil F. Greenblum ce: All counsel of record (via ECF)