The County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc et al

Filing 693

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL THEIR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S OBJECTIONS by Judge Alsup denying 687 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2010)

Download PDF
The County of Santa Clara v. Astra USA, Inc et al Doc. 693 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASTRA USA, INC., ASTRA ZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, EVENTS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BAYER CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, PFIZER, INC., SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION TAP PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC., ZENECCA, INC., ZLB BEHRING LLC, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXO SMITHKLINE, WYETH, INC., WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California No. C 05-03740 WHA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL THEIR RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATION OF AMBIEN FOR INTERROGATORY RESPONSES Defendant Aventis recently objected to the designation of Ambien by plaintiffs as the product about which defendant Aventis would have to answer two court-ordered interrogatories (Dkt. No. 685). Plaintiffs were granted leave to respond, and, in so doing, they concurrently filed a motion to file their response, and two exhibits to their supporting declaration, under seal (Dkt. No. 687). Plaintiffs filed their motion without narrowly tailoring their request to seal portions of their response in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Furthermore, according to the declaration submitted in support of plaintiffs' motion, the documents at issue include testimony Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and documents that defendants designated as confidential or highly confidential. Defendants have not filed a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, or withdrawn the designation of confidentiality, in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). Plaintiffs' motion is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs must make their response and supporting documents part of the public record. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?