Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company

Opinion

LHOMPSON ATLANTA CINCINNATI COLUMBUS NEW YORK ~ HIN E CHICAGO CLEVELAND DAYTON WASHINGTON, D.C. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT April 20, 2021 ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: VIA ECF DATE FILED:_04/21/2021 Hon. Katharine H. Parker —————— United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse APPLICATION GRANTED 500 Pearl Street / Y f New York, New York 10007 Hon. Katharine H. Parker, U.S.M.J. Re: Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, et al., 04/21/2021 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 III(d), and the parties’ Stipulated Confidentiality and Protective Order (the “Protective Order’) (Dkt. 156) to request leave to file with redactions and under seal the Letter Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Properly Review, Designate, and Produce Relevant Documents, and for Costs, pursuant to Rule 37 (the “Motion”’) filed today. 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 Commc’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, Defendants do not believe that the Motion contains any Highly Confidential information. However, the Motion describes and quotes from the letter Plaintiff filed on April 14, 2021 describing its document review process (the “Review Letter”) (Dkt. 233). Because Plaintiff designated the entire Review Letter as Highly Confidential, and out of an abundance of caution, Defendants seek leave to file their motion to compel under seal. GE respectfully requests that the Court permit filing of the letter motion under seal.

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 Very truly yours, /s/ Marla R. Butler THOMPSON HINE LLP Carl Wesoloweki (pro hae vice) Jesse Jenike-Godshalk (pro hac vice) He van (P hae wi ) 312 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Two Alliance Center wee Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 3560 Lenox Road NE, Suite 1600 Foes (313) 24171 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 halk @Th Ui Tel.: (404) 541-2900 Jesse.Godshalk @ ThompsonHine.com Fax: (404) 541-2905 Marla.Butler@ ThompsonHine.com Carl.Wesolowski@ ThompsonHine.com Lauren.Hogan @ThompsonHine.com Brian Lanciault J effr ey Metzcar 335 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor Discovery Place New York. New York 10017 10050 Innovation Drive Tel.: (212) 344-5680 Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 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 cc: All Counsel of Record via ECF