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

Filing 935

ORDER ON JANUARY 19, 2018, TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE - Parties appeared by counsel on January 19, 2018, for a telephonic status conference. Discussion was held regarding the numerous motions to seal that have been filed in this action. Pursuant to discussions during the telephonic status conference, the Court grants the following motions that documents be maintained under seal: Filing Nos. #849 , #853 , #859 , #863 , #868 , #874 , #878 , #903 , #906 , #915 , #919 , #922 , #925 , and #928 . **SEE ORDER** Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (MGG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

ORDER ON JANUARY 19, 2018, TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE
Parties appeared by counsel on January 19, 2018, for a telephonic status conference.
Discussion was held regarding the numerous motions to seal that have been filed in this action.
Pursuant to discussions during the telephonic status conference, the Court grants the following
motions that documents be maintained under seal: Filing Nos. 849, 853, 859, 863, 868, 874, 878,
903, 906, 915, 919, 922, 925, and 928.
A review of the docket reveals that information has been filed under seal that likely
should not have been. The parties appear to confirm that justifications for maintaining some of
the material under seal are lacking. However, given the sheer volume of sealed filings at this
stage in this complex, highly active litigation, comprehensive review is not feasible at this time.
Going forward, however, a different course is appropriate. The parties are expected to
follow the procedure for sealed filings as outlined in Local Rule 5-11. Parties should pay
particular attention to assure that they are not seeking to seal information for which there is no
legal basis, irrespective of prior orders granting requests to seal. See Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott
Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002) (a motion that “does not analyze in detail, document by
document, the propriety of secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations . . . [has] no prospect

for success”); Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2000) (the parties
desiring secrecy must show “good cause” to maintain a document under seal).
As for the numerous sealed filings already in this case, the Court reserves the right, at the
conclusion of this litigation (or sooner), to revisit the propriety of all sealed filings and unseal all
docket entries absent sufficient justification. See Elder Care Providers of Ind., Inc. v. Home
Instead, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01894-SEB-MJD, 2015 WL 4425679, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Jul. 16, 2015)
(absent a showing of good cause outweighing the public’s right to access the information,
“discovery that [is] filed and form[s] the basis of judicial action must eventually be released”).
In the interim, the Court will address any motion filed by any interested member of the public
that seeks to unseal any sealed filing. Governing Seventh Circuit law requires nothing less.
Date: 1/26/2018

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: All ECF-registered counsel of record by email.

2