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

Filing 701

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S OBJECTIONS by Judge Alsup denying 697 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2010)

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

Doc. 701

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 DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE AND EXHIBIT 6 TO DEFENDANT AVENTIS'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' DESIGNATION OF AMBIEN

The same day as an order denied plaintiffs' motion to seal documents that defendant Aventis had designated as confidential, it filed a further motion asking for the same relief. The motion stated that defendant "omitted to file a declaration in support of Plaintiffs' motion to seal pursuant to 79-5[(d)]." The documents at issue in the previous order were plaintiffs' response in a discovery dispute and two exhibits to the supporting declaration. The documents at issue in defendant Aventis's new motion are plaintiffs' response and only one of the two exhibits that were previously at issue.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The prior order will stand. First, despite the fact that the order stated that a request to file plaintiffs' entire response under seal was not narrowly tailored in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), defendant Aventis still moves to file the whole response under seal in its new motion. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) does not allow this. Second, the documents at issue were put on the public docket, pursuant to the previous order. Finally, defendant cites no authority to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to court records. Defendant Aventis's motion (Dkt. No. 697) is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

Dated: August 30, 2010.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE