General Electric Company v. APR Energy PLC

Filing 201

ORDER granting 196 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 200 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 196 LETTER MOTION to Seal addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Wesley A. Morrissette dated November 24, 2021, 200 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Victor Marrero from Jessica L. Falk dated November 26, 2021. For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that the letter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 19 6) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that General Electric's request to extend the deadline to file its reply to APR's opposition to December 3, 2021, is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. ( Replies due by 12/3/2021.) (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 11/29/2021) (va)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

11/29/21

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

19 Civ. 3472 (VM)
ORDER

-againstAPR ENERGY PLC,
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff,
APR ENERGY HOLDINGS LIMITED, POWER
RENTAL OP CO AUSTTRALIA LLC, AND POWER
RENTAL ASSET CO TWO LLC,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-againstGENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendant.

VICTOR MARRERO, United States District Judge.
Consistent with the Court’s Individual Rules, on November 24,
2021, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff APR Energy plc and ThirdParty Plaintiffs APR Energy Holdings Ltd., Power Rental Op Co
Australia LLC, and Power Rental Asset Co. Two LLC (collectively
“APR”)

requested

opposition
objection

to
to

leave

to

file

General

Electric

Magistrate

Judge

under
Co.’s
Fox’s

seal

exhibits

(“General
order

to

its

Electric”)

denying

General

Electric’s motion to compel production. (See Dkt. No. 196.) At the
same time, APR filed redacted versions of these exhibits. (See

Dkt. Nos. 199-2, 199-4.) APR requests that these exhibits remain
under seal until the resolution of this case because the exhibits
were marked Confidential or Highly Confidential pursuant to the
Stipulation and Protective Order for the Production and Exchange
of Confidential Information, (Dkt. Nos. 77-1 & 78).
Materials may remain under seal “if the sealing order is
narrowly tailored to achieve that aim.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court finds good
cause to grant the requests for sealing the exhibits to APR’s
opposition brief.
General Electric also requests an extension of the deadline
to file its reply to APR’s opposition from December 1, 2021, to
December 3, 2021, due to the intervening Thanksgiving holiday.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that the letter motion to seal (Dkt. No. 196) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED

that

General

Electric’s

request

to

extend

the

deadline to file its reply to APR’s opposition to December 3, 2021,
is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
November 29, 2021