Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering,Inc. et al
Filing
201
DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 110 Motion to Compel. Signed by Hon. Jeremiah J. McCarthy on 5/11/15. (DAZ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
STEUBEN FOODS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
v.
12-CV-00904-EAW-JJM
GEA PROCESS ENGINEERING, INC.,
d/b/a GEA PROCOMAC and GEA
PROCOMAC S.p.A.,
Defendants.
______________________________________
The action has been referred to me for supervision of pretrial proceedings [89].1
Before me is the motion [110] of plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. (“Steuben”) to compel production
of an unredacted copy of a sales agreement (the “Agreement”) between defendant GEA Process
Engineering, Inc. (“GPNA”) and Nestlé USA, Inc. (“Nestlé”) relating to the sale of bottling
equipment. Familiarity with the relevant facts is presumed. For the following reasons, the motion
is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
GPNA previously provided Steuben with a copy of the Agreement, from which it
redacted a portion of paragraph 1, all of paragraph 2, and paragraphs 3(c) and 9(c), claiming that
these portions are privileged and confidential [151-1].2 My February 25, 2015 Decision and
Order [179, 185] allowed Steuben to produce that version to the Patent and Trademark Appeals
1
2
Bracketed references are to the CM/ECF docket entries.
The unredacted Agreement has been docketed under seal, accessible only to the court
[200] (although GPNA and Nestlé obviously already have a copy).
Board (“PTAB”) in connection with its challenge to inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings
commenced by Nestlé.
Since then, Nestlé has provided the PTAB with an unredacted version for its in
camera review, and the PTAB “has determined that paragraphs 1 and 2 were properly withheld
because they contain privileged communications” (GPNA’s Supplemental Opposition [192],
p. 2), but that paragraphs 3 and 9 were not privileged . . . . Nestlé then produced the . . .
agreement to Steuben with the redactions removed on paragraphs 3 and 9”. Id.
GPNA suggests that “[c]onsidering that Steuben already has the . . . agreement
with paragraphs 3 and 9 undeacted, GPNA believes that the most appropriate relief in this case
is an order finding paragraphs 3 and 9 to not be privileged. If the Court makes such a finding,
GPNA will produce the . . . contract to Steuben with paragraphs 3 and 9 unredacted”. Id., p. 2,
n. 2.
Having conducted my own in camera review of the Agreement, I agree with
the PTAB’s conclusion that paragraphs 3 (specifically, 3(c)) and 9 (specifically, 9(c)) of the
Agreement are neither privileged nor confidential, and therefore should be disclosed. I further
agree with its conclusion that the redacted portion of paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 up to the
comma in line 3 of that paragraph, are privileged, as they may reflect advice of counsel.
However, I do not agree that the remainder of paragraph 2 is privileged or confidential, since it
does not disclose anything that is not disclosed in the unredacted portions of the Agreement
which have already been produced to Steuben by GPNA or Nestlé.
-2-
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Steuben’s motion [110] is granted in part and denied in part, as
follows: the redacted portion of paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 (up to the comma in line 3 of that
paragraph) of the Agreement need not be produced to Steuben, but the remaining previously
redacted portions shall be produced. However, enforcement of this Decision and Order will be
stayed until noon on May 18, 2015 to give the parties (including Nestlé, which has been aware of
this motion but has not yet sought to intervene) the opportunity to seek further review from
District Judge Elizabeth Wolford.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 11, 2015
/s/ Jeremiah J. McCarthy
JEREMIAH J. MCCARTHY
United States Magistrate Judge
-3-
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?