Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company ( 2021 )

LHOMPSON ATLANTA CINCINNATI COLUMBUS NEW YORK ~ HIN E CHICAGO CLEVELAND DAYTON WASHINGTON, D.C, USDC SDNY DOCUMENT March 22, 2021 ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: VIA ECF ee Hon. Katharine H. Parker DATE FILED,_03/23/2021 United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York APPLICATION GRANTED Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse oe 500 Pearl Street Katha 4 | f J le 4 New York, New York 10007 Hon. Katharine H. Parker, U.S.M.J. Re: Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited v. General Electric Company, et al., 03/23/2021 Case No.: 18-cv-11386 (VSB) Dear Judge Parker: We represent Defendant General Electric Company (“GE”’) in the above-captioned matter.. On behalf of GE and Plaintiff Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited, 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’) (Doc. 156) to request that several passages contained in Document Number 200, the transcript of the parties’ appearance before Your Honor on February 25, 2021, be redacted and filed under seal. The parties jointly respectfully request that before the transcript is made publicly available, the court reporter be directed to redact the passages highlighted on pages 6-8, 10, 16-17, 21, 25-34, and 37, as set forth in Exhibit | hereto. 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, the discussions in the transcript concern GE’s development of a certain product that is not publicly available and confidential details of Spectrum’s alleged trade secrets. This information is competitively sensitive and proprietary information of GE or Spectrum, respectively, that, if disclosed, would pose a substantial risk of harm to GE or Spectrum, and constitutes “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information under the Protective Order. (Doc. 156.). This is the sort of competitively sensitive information that courts consistently protect 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 from disclosure. See, e.g., Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., No. 12-cv-2650, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150239, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 7) (granting motion to seal documents containing proprietary information related to product development); Encyclopedia Brown, 26 F. Supp. 2d at 612 (sealing documents reflecting sensitive trade secret information). This is particularly the case where, as here, the information to be sealed was not relevant to the Court’s resolution of any issue. Cf Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 814 F. 3d 132, 143 (d Cir. 2016) (denying sealing request where documents were “highly relevant to the exercise of Article III judicial power’). The parties’ request is narrowly tailored to protect highly confidential information and does not deprive the public of access to critical information. The parties respectfully request that the Court permit the requested redactions in the publicly available version of the February 25, 2021 transcript (Doc. 200). THOMPSON HINE Page 3 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