ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al v. ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY et al

Filing 707

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF ORDER - The Court DENIES Lilly's #694 Motion to Seal Portions of the Court's July 10, 2017, Order. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 7/21/2017. (GSO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-01770-LJM-TAB

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’, Eli Lilly and Company and Eli
Lilly do Brasil Ltda. (collectively, “Lilly’s”), Motion to Seal Portions of the Court’s Order
July 10, 2017, Order (the “Motion”). Dkt. No. 694. Lilly requests that the Court redact
certain portions of its prior order regarding Defendants’, Arch Insurance Company and
Arch Specialty Insurance Company’s (collectively, “Arch’s”), Motion to Compel the
Depositions of Ian S. Pettman and Mike Brown or, in the Alternative, to Strike the
Affidavits of Ian S. Pettman and Mike Brown, and Motion for Sanctions, Dkt. No. 683 (the
“Prior Order”).

Dkt. No. 694.

Specifically, Lilly requests that the Court redact all

references to Docket Numbers 556, Ex. 4; 556, Ex. 13; 568, Ex. A, ¶¶ 7-13; 584, Ex. 3;
632 at 10-13; 632, Ex. 8, 632 at 24-26; and 652 at 28-31, within the Prior Order because
such references contain information that qualifies as “Confidential Information” under the
Joint Agreed Protective Order issued in this case. Dkt. No. 694 at 2.

I. DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), the Court may, “for good
cause,” issue an order to seal certain documents that contain “a trade secret or other
confidential research, development, or commercial information not to be revealed or be
revealed only in a specified way” from public disclosure. However, sealing documents
within judicial proceedings “is the exception, not the rule.”

Formax, Inc. v. Alkar-

Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., No. 11-C-0298, 2014 WL 792086, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 25,
2014). It is well-settled that “ʻmost documents filed in court are presumptively open to the
public,’” and that the public’s right to access judicial records “is protected by the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Reynolds v. Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-

3020JMS-WGH, 2012 WL 48115576, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2012) (quoting Bond v.
Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1073 (7th Cir. 2009)) (citing Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct.
for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596, 603-06 (1982); Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597 (1978)). This right to access ensures “the public’s right to monitor the functioning
of the courts, thereby insuring quality, honesty, and respect for the legal system.”
Reynolds, 2012 WL 4815576 at *1 (citing Matter of Cont’l Ill. Sec. Litig., 732 F.2d 1302,
1308 (7th Cir. 1984)). While “[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject of the case
… be kept from the curious,” litigants “must accept the openness that goes with
subsidized dispute resolution by public (and publicly accountable) officials” when they call
upon the courts. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-68 (7th Cir. 2000).
Thus, materials “that influence or underpin [a court’s] judicial decision are open to public
inspection unless they meet the definition of trade secrets or other categories of bona fide

2

long-term confidentiality.” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 297 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.
2002) (citations omitted).
Here, Lilly relies only upon the parties’ Joint Agreed Protective Order, Dkt. No. 227,
and the Court’s prior orders granting motions to maintain certain documents under seal
to support its Motion. Dkt. No. 694 at 1-3. However, without more, the Court cannot
redact the requested portions of its Prior Order. See Baxter, 297 F.3d at 545-46 (denying
the parties’ joint motion to maintain documents under seal, which was based mostly on
their agreement to keep such documents confidential, because “[t]he motion did not
analyze the applicable legal criteria or contend that any document … legitimately may be
kept from public inspection despite its important to the resolution of the litigation”); see
also, Reynolds, 2012 WL 4815576 at *2 (denying a plaintiff’s motion to seal the court’s
order because the plaintiff had “not directed the court to any rule, statute, or order
requiring the Court to seal it[s] decision”). A party seeking to prevent disclosure of certain
information “must explain how disclosure would cause harm and why the harm predicted
warrants secrecy.” Formax, 2014 WL 792086 at *2 (citing Baxter, 297 F.3d at 547).
Because Lilly failed to demonstrate how disclosure of the information described in the
Motion to Seal would cause harm and to provide any legal support for its requested
redactions, the Court denies the Motion to Seal.

3

II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Lilly’s Motion to Seal Portions of
the Court’s July 10, 2017, Order. Dkt. No. 694.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2017.

________________________________
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Electronically distributed to all registered attorneys of record via ECF.

4