Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Acella Pharmaceuticals Incorporated

Filing 267

ORDER granting 263 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall file the Reply currently lodged at Docket 264 , except that the Clerk will not file Exhibit C to the Prop osed Reply because of the Court's denial of the Motion to Seal. FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Acella's 265 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6(e), the Court will strike the the Sealed Lodged Proposed Exhibit at Docket 266 . Acella shall have five (5) days from the date of this Order to resubmit Exhibit C to the Reply for filing in the public record. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/27/11.(MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Acella Pharmaceuticals Incorporated,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-1780-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
16

Acella filed a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of its Reply in

17

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 263) on September 26, 2011. Acella

18

requests an additional four pages for its Reply. Because of the length of Medicis’s Response

19

and the complexity of the issues involved, the Court finds good cause for the additional

20

pages. The Court therefore will grant the Motion.

21

Acella has also filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 265). Acella seeks

22

to seal Exhibit C to its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Exhibit C

23

contains excerpts from deposition testimony that Medicis has designated as Confidential

24

pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order.

25

The Court starts with a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.

26

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party that

27

wants to seal any part of a dispositive motion must overcome this strong presumption with

28

compelling reasons for sealing. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

1

1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To seal any part of non-dispositive motion, a party still must

2

demonstrate good cause. Id. at 1180.

3

The deposition testimony at issue deals with Medicis’s process for handling consumer

4

complaints. Acella asserts that the testimony should be sealed because the testimony

5

represents a source of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.

6

The Court respectfully disagrees. The Court finds that Acella has demonstrated neither

7

compelling reasons, nor good cause for sealing Exhibit C to the Reply. The Court therefore

8

denies the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 265).

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Acella’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in

11

Support of its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 263). The Clerk

12

shall file the Reply currently lodged at Docket 264, except that the Clerk will not file Exhibit

13

C to the Proposed Reply because of the Court’s denial of the Motion to Seal.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Acella’s Motion for Leave to File Under

15

Seal (Doc. 265). Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6(e), the Court will strike the

16

the Sealed Lodged Proposed Exhibit at Docket 266. Acella shall have five (5) days from the

17

date of this Order to resubmit Exhibit C to the Reply for filing in the public record.

18

DATED this 27th day of September, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-