Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc.

Filing 156

ORDER Granting 155 Declaration of Anders Aennestad in Support of Sealing Portions of 155 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/7/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC, et al,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
SANDOZ INC.,
14
Defendant.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00111-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 155)

16

Pending before the Court is the Declaration of Anders T. Aannestad in Support of Sealing

17

Portions of Spectrum's Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket No. 155. Defendant seeks to file under

18

seal certain exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. See Docket No. 149; see also

19

Docket No. 150 (redacted version filed on public docket). Pursuant to the procedure outlined by the

20

Court, see Docket No. 152, and the Court’s Order, Docket No. 154, Defendant submitted a declaration

21

in support of the request to seal. Docket No. 155. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby

22

GRANTS the request to seal.

23

I.

STANDARD

24

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.

25

See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm

26

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal

27

bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

28

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of

1

documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling

2

reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.1 Those compelling reasons must outweigh the

3

competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial

4

process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”

5

including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process). The Ninth Circuit has indicated

6

that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

7

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as

8

the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

9

II.

ANALYSIS

10

The documents at issue in the declaration are Exhibits 23-27, 31, 33, 35, and 37-38 attached to

11

the Motion for Summary Judgement That Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,500,829 is Not Invalid, as well

12

as certain information that has been redacted in the motion for summary judgment. See Docket Nos.

13

149, 150, 155. Specifically, the exhibits are as follows:

14

•

Exhibit 23: Memorandum dated September 5, 1986.

15

•

Exhibit 24: Letter dated September 11, 1986.

16

•

Exhibit 25: A Confidentiality Agreement.

17

•

Exhibit 26: Letter dated January 22, 1986.

18

•

Exhibit 27: Expert Report of Stephen F. Martin, Ph.D.

19

•

Exhibit 31: Rebuttal Expert Statement of Thomas Bannister, Ph.D.

20

•

Exhibit 33: Transcript of Stephen F. Martin, Ph.D. Deposition

21

•

Exhibit 35: Transcript of J. Bryan Jones Deposition

22

•

Exhibit 37: Letter dated November 28, 1986.

23

•

Exhibit 38: Reply Expert Report of Stephen F. Martin, Ph.D.

24
25
26
27

1

Kamakana and Foltz involve non-parties’ attempts to obtain sealed court documents. The same
analysis and standards apply to a party’s motion to seal. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n.5; see also
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 n.9 (for the case before it, noting that “[t]he effective bottom line is that the
district court was determining whether documents should be sealed”).

28
2

1
2

In support of the motion to seal, Defendant submitted the declaration of Anders T. Aannestad
stating, in part, that this information:

3

concerns sensitive information relating to Sandoz’s Abbreviated New Drug Application
(“ANDA”) No. 230563 and Sandoz’s business practices.

4
The information concerns the manufacture of the active pharmaceutical ingredient in
Sandoz’s proposed ANDA product that is highly confidential and presently unavailable
to the public.

5
6

Disclosure of such information could injure Sandoz’s competitive posture, especially
given that Sandoz competes in the competitive and time-sensitive generic pharmaceutical
industry.

7
8

Docket No. 155 at 2.
9
The Court has reviewed each of the exhibits and redacted portions of the motion and concludes
10
that they all contain or concern proprietary, trade secret, and technical information which warrants
11
keeping them sealed. Further, the Court finds that both good cause and compelling reasons exist to seal
12
this information that overcome the presumption of public access, that the information within the motion
13
has been properly redacted, and that the documents in the exhibits cannot be easily redacted while
14
leaving meaningful information available to the public.
15
III.

CONCLUSION

16
For good cause shown, the unredacted motion and declaration at Docket No. 149 will remain
17
under seal and no further filing of redacted versions is required.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
DATED: November 7, 2013
20
21

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3