Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company et al

Filing 519

ORDER granting 482 Letter Motion to Seal; denying 485 Letter Motion to Seal. The motion to seal at ECF No. 482 is GRANTED, and the documents under seal at ECF No. 483 may remain under seal. The motion to seal at ECF No. 485 is DENIED and the clerk of the court is respectfully directed to unseal the documents at ECF No. 486. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 8/31/2022) (rro)

Case 1:18-cv-11386-VSB-KHP Document 519 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
8/31/2022

SPECTRUM DYNAMICS MEDICAL
LIMITED,

ORDER

Plaintiff,

18-CV-11386 (VSB) (KHP)

-againstGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.,
Defendants.

KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 10 and 24, 2022, the parties filed joint letters outlining certain discovery
disputes. (ECF Nos. 483, 486.) The parties moved for permission to file these letters and
related exhibits under seal. (ECF Nos. 482, 485.) The Court addressed the parties’ discovery
disputes at a case managing conference on June 27, 2022. Now before the Court are the
parties’ motions to seal.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The common law and the First Amendment accord a presumption of public access to
judicial documents. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). A
“judicial document” is “a filed item that is ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function
and useful in the judicial process.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
814 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119). To overcome the
presumption of public access over a judicial document, the court must make “specific, on the
record findings” that sealing (1) is necessary “to preserve higher values,” and (2) “is narrowly
tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120 (citation omitted).

1

Case 1:18-cv-11386-VSB-KHP Document 519 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 4

Although the presumption of public access attaches to all judicial documents, “the
presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes . . . is
generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in
connection with dispositive motions such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment.”
Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019). “Thus, while a court must still articulate
specific and substantial reasons” for sealing material filed in connection with a discovery
dispute, “the reasons usually need not be as compelling as those required to seal” filings
connected to a dispositive motion. Id.
ANALYSIS
The letters and exhibits in question were filed to assist the Court in managing the
parties’ discovery disputes, and as such, the presumption of public access that attaches to these
documents is “not particularly great.” Alexander Interactive, Inc. v. Adorama, Inc., 2014 WL
4346174, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2014). Regardless, sealing is only appropriate if the Court can
articulate specific and substantial reasons for sealing such material, and if the Court finds the
sealing is narrowly tailored. Brown, 929 F.3d at 50.
1. June 10, 2022 Letter and Exhibits
The June 10, 2022 letter concerns the parties’ dispute as to the production of
documents. The parties argue this letter and its exhibits contain sensitive and proprietary
business information that, if disclosed, could pose a substantial risk of harm. This is a
compelling “higher value” warranting sealing. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch.
Corp., 97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (granting motion to seal to prevent disclosure of

2

Case 1:18-cv-11386-VSB-KHP Document 519 Filed 08/31/22 Page 3 of 4

sensitive business information the public disclosure of which “may provide valuable insights
into a company's current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”).
The Court agrees that the letter and related exhibits refer to proprietary business
information, including information related to a prior arbitration and the scope of various
licensing agreements. Such information may remain under seal at this stage of the litigation.
The Court also finds that permitting the entire letter and exhibits to remain under seal is
narrowly tailored in this instance. Generally, portions of documents “with no apparent
relation” to sensitive material should not be redacted or sealed. Susquehanna Int'l Grp. Ltd. v.
Hibernia Express (Ir.) Ltd., 2021 WL 3540221, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2021) (denying motion to
seal where proposed redactions were “extensive” and covered non-commercially sensitive
information). Here, however, the vast majority of the letter and related exhibits directly
pertains to the sensitive and/or proprietary business information. Accordingly, the letter and
all exhibits to it may remain under seal.
2. June 24, 2022 Letter and Exhibits
The June 24, 2022 letter concerns the parties’ disputes regarding depositions. The
parties argue that this letter should remain under seal because it contains information
designated as “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by the parties under their Stipulated
Confidentiality and Protective Order. However, it is well established that the fact that material
may be designated by the parties as confidential under a protective order is not sufficient to
overcome the presumption of public access once the material becomes a judicial document.
Dodona I, LLC v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 119 F. Supp. 3d 152, 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

3

Case 1:18-cv-11386-VSB-KHP Document 519 Filed 08/31/22 Page 4 of 4

The parties do not specify what information in the letter or exhibit is confidential, why
the information is confidential, or whether disclosure of the information might be harmful to
the parties. The letter also does not appear to contain any sensitive business information or
references to any trade secrets, but rather primarily focuses on the parties’ arguments as to
how many witnesses should be deposed and for how long. The exhibit is an email chain
between counsel for the parties regarding the list of witnesses to be deposed. Many of the
listed witnesses are named defendants or otherwise have submitted declarations in this action
already, and so their names are already publicly known.
As the Court is not able to make specific, on-the-record filings that sealing of these
documents furthers any higher values, the parties’ motion to seal this letter and exhibit is
denied.
CONCLUSION
The motion to seal at ECF No. 482 is GRANTED, and the documents under seal at ECF
No. 483 may remain under seal.
The motion to seal at ECF No. 485 is DENIED and the clerk of the court is respectfully
directed to unseal the documents at ECF No. 486.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 31, 2022
New York, New York
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

4