Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center et al
ORDER granting 75 Letter Motion to Seal. APPLICATION GRANTED SO ORDERED. Defendants are directed to Rule 5.B. of my Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases and to meet and confer with Plaintiff as necessary to determine if the motion and accompanying materials can be filed in redacted form on ECF. (Signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick on 7/29/2022) (jca)
Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
July 28, 2022
+1 212 230 8830 (t)
+1 212 230 8888 (f)
Hon. Vernon S. Broderick
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Defendants are directed to Rule 5.B. of my Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases
and to meet and confer with Plaintiff as necessary to determine if the motion and
accompanying materials can be filed in redacted form on ECF.
San Rocco Therapeutics, LLC v. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, et al.,
C.A. No. 1:21-cv-08206-VSB
Dear Judge Broderick:
On behalf of the named defendants in the above-referenced action, Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center and Sloan Kettering Institute (collectively, “Sloan Kettering”), I write
pursuant to Rule 5(B) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases to seek leave
to file, in redacted form, Sloan Kettering’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“Opposition Brief”).
Sloan Kettering’s Opposition Brief relies in substantial part on a confidential settlement
agreement between the parties, which contains proprietary, and sensitive business and competitive
information concerning Sloan Kettering’s intellectual property, including its relationship with SRT
As shown by the parties’ prior submissions under seal in this case, both parties recognize
the sensitive nature of such information, and agreed, following the conclusion of extensive
litigation between the parties in the Commercial Division of New York State Court, to keep such
information, including the existence of the settlement agreement, strictly confidential. See First
Amended Compl. Ex. C ¶ 11. The Court has previously granted the parties’ requests to file the
redacted information under seal on multiple occasions.
The public disclosure of the redacted terms of the settlement agreement, which have never
been disclosed publicly, would cause significant harm, jeopardize both parties’ positioning with
respect to intellectual property in the field, and be contrary to public policy favoring freedom to
contract and the efficient resolution of disputes. See Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d
133, 143 (2d Cir. 2004) (reasoning that “there may well be valid reasons” to keep settlement terms
confidential, particularly “when the settlement itself was conditioned on confidentiality and when
the settlement documents were not filed with the court and were not the basis for the court’s
adjudication. If nothing else, honoring the parties’ express wish for confidentiality may facilitate
settlement, which courts are bound to encourage”).
July 28, 2022
Sloan Kettering believes that filing the identified materials under seal is necessary to
restrict the disclosure of the highly sensitive information contained therein. We therefore
respectfully request that the Court enter an order permitting the Opposition Brief to be filed in
redacted form. We have conferred with counsel for plaintiff SRT, who do not oppose the above
/s/ Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
Robert J. Gunther, Jr.
cc: Lenore Horton
Mary Jean Kim
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?