Germano v. Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc. et al

Filing 218

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTYS MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED IN CONNECTION WITH COLEAD PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE, IN PART, EXPERT REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM JEFFERS; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 26, 2024. (mmclc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2024)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

IN RE AIMMUNE THERAPEUTICS,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Case No. 20-cv-06733-MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED IN CONNECTION WITH COLEAD PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
EXCLUDE, IN PART, EXPERT
REPORT AND TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM JEFFERS; DIRECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another

15
16

Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Opposition to

17

Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, in Part, Expert Report and Testimony of William Jeffers,”

18

filed August 5, 2024 (Doc. No. 191 (“Administrative Motion”)), whereby plaintiffs seek to

19

file under seal the following materials, which, plaintiffs state, have been designated as

20

confidential by defendants: (1) portions of “Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’

21

Motion to Exclude, in Part, Expert Report and Testimony of William Jeffers” (Doc. No.

22

199); and (2) Exhibit 87 to the “Declaration of Juan E. Monteverde in Support of Co-Lead

23

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” (Doc. No. 193 ("Monteverde

24

Declaration")). In response to the Administrative Motion, defendants have filed a

25

Declaration in support of sealing. (See Declaration of Christine McInerney (Doc. No.

26

205).)

27
28

The Court having read and considered the above-referenced submissions, the
Administrative Motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1
2

“Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, in Part, Expert Report

3

and Testimony of William Jeffers,” the Administrative Motion is GRANTED as to the text

4

highlighted in yellow on page 6, pages 20-21, and pages 24-25 in Attachment 2 to the

5

“Declaration of Christine McInerney in Support of Administrative Motion to Consider

6

Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in Connection with Co-Lead

7

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, in Part, Expert Report and

8

Testimony Of William Jeffers” (see Doc. No. 205-2).

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1. To the extent the Administrative Motion seeks leave to file under seal portions of

In all other respects, the Administrative Motion is DENIED, the designating parties
not having sought to have other portions sealed.

11

2. To the extent the Administrative Motion seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit 87

12

to the Monteverde Declaration (Doc. No. 193-1), the Administrative Motion is GRANTED.

13
14

Plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than fourteen
days from the date of this order:

15

a. a revised redacted version of “Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’

16

Motion to Exclude, in Part, Expert Report and Testimony of William Jeffers.”

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: September 26, 2024
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2