Shao et al v. Beta Pharma, Inc. et al

Filing 201

ORDER (see attached) regarding Plaintiffs' 200 Letter Motion/Request for In-Camera Review Pursuant to Protective Order, dated April 12, 2018. Permission to submit the confidential documents referenced by this Letter Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must file any supplemental memo in support of their 196 Motion for Modification of Protective Order on or before Thursday, May 3, 2018. Defendants may file opposing papers to that Motion, if so advised, no later than Monday, May 14, 2018, and Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, no later than Monday, May 21, 2018. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 19, 2018. (Pskowski, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SHANSHAN SHAO, HONGLIANG CHU,
QIAN LIU, SONG LU, AND XINSHAN
KANG,
3:14-cv-01177(CSH)
Plaintiffs,
v.
April 19, 2018
BETA PHARMA, INC., AND DON
ZHANG,

Defendants.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' LETTER MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO DELIVER
SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR IN-CAMERA REVIEW
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
Pursuant to the effective Protective Order [Doc. 129-1] in this case, Plaintiffs have filed a
Letter Motion, dated April 12, 2018, requesting the Court's permission to submit a sealed
supplemental memorandum of law, accompanied by certain confidential exhibits, in support of their
Motion for Modification of Protective Order [Doc 196]. Plaintiffs represent that Defendants do not
object to this request. "Pursuant Paragraph 19 of the existing Protective Order," Plaintiff counsel
represents that he is "required to request [the Court's] permission to deliver these supplemental
documents to [] chambers for in-camera review." Letter Motion at 1.
A review of the referenced paragraph 19 reveals this rather recondite verbiage:
If the need arises during litigation of this case for any Party to
disclose Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only Material to the Court,
the Party may only do so pursuant to a Motion to Seal. The Party
1

seeking to disclose such information must: pursuant to Rule 5(e)(4)(c)
of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, seek permission from the Court submit the documents
sought to be sealed to chambers for in camera consideration and serve
on all counsel of record copies of the documents sought to be sealed
and shall file a motion to seal, a memorandum and supporting
documents.
Doc. 129-1 ¶ 19. The meaning of the ungrammatical phrase "[t]he Party seeking to disclose . . . must
. . . seek permission from the Court submit the documents to be sealed to chambers" is not
immediately clear. Local Rule 5(e)(4)(c), one of three alternative procedures by which attorneys
practicing in this district may pursue an order to file a document under seal, provides:
Counsel may seek permission of the presiding Judge to submit the
documents sought to be sealed for in camera consideration. If the
Judge agrees to review documents in camera, counsel shall submit to
Chambers and shall serve on all counsel of record copies of the
documents sought to be sealed and shall e-file a motion to seal, a
memorandum and supporting documents.
Reading the Local Rule and the Protective Order together, I infer that the Protective Order contains
a typographical error, and was meant to read "the Party seeking to disclose must seek permission
from the Court to submit the documents to be sealed to chambers," which phrasing would comport
with the language of the Local Rule.
Like counsel, I work within the strictures of the Federal and Local Rules. In this case,
counsel are further required, by their own stipulation, to work within the bounds of the effective
Protective Order. Having made my best effort to divine the meaning of that Order, I hereby GRANT
permission for Plaintiffs to submit the documents sought to be sealed, as requested by their Letter
Motion. To clarify the briefing schedule for the pending Motion to Modify Protective Order, in
support of which the sealed supplemental memo is to be filed, I order that Plaintiffs must file any

2

supplemental memo on or before Thursday, May 3, 2018. Defendants may file opposing papers,
if so advised, no later than Monday, May 14, 2018, and Plaintiffs may file a reply, if any, no later
than Monday, May 21, 2018.
The foregoing is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
April 19, 2018

/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

3