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

Filing 314

ORDER that 296 Motion to Seal is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED THAT, within one day of serving the opposing party in the Eurohealth Litigation with Mr. Henel's expert statement, Plaintiffs must file unredacted versions of Defendant's motion in limine and Exhibits 1-2 on the public docket in the instant case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/29/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC, et al, 10 Plaintiffs, 11 vs. 12 SANDOZ INC., 13 Defendant. 14 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:12-cv-00111-GMN-NJK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 296) Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to seal. Docket No. 296. The motion seeks to 16 file under seal portions of Defendant’s Motion in Limine to exclude the Testimony of Rolf Henel and 17 Exhibits 1-2 attached to the Declaration of Jessica A. Roberts in Support of Defendant’s Motion in 18 Limine (sealed version: Docket No. 298; public version: Docket No. 297). 19 Defendant submitted the Declaration of Anders T. Aannestad in support of its motion to seal. 20 Docket No. 296-1. Defendant represents in its motion that its sole ground for filing Exhibits 1-2 under 21 seal, and for the redactions, is the designation of the materials by Plaintiffs as confidential or outside 22 counsel eyes only, pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order. Docket No. 296, at 2; Docket No. 296-1, 23 at 2. Therefore, on December 19, 2014, and in compliance with prior instructions from the Court, 24 Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Mark H. Izraelewicz in Support of Defendant’s motion to seal. Docket 25 No. 304. 26 I. STANDARD 27 The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. 28 See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm 1 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal 2 bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 3 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of 4 documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling 5 reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.1 Those compelling reasons must outweigh the 6 competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial 7 process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,” 8 including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process). The Ninth Circuit has indicated 9 that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing 10 court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as 11 the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 In his Declaration, Izraelewicz represents that Exhibit 1 attached to the Declaration of Jessica 14 A. Roberts (“Exhibit 1") is comprised of excerpts from the deposition transcript of Plaintiffs’ expert, 15 Rolf Henel, and that Exhibit 2 attached to the Declaration of Jessica A. Roberts (“Exhibit 2") is Rolf 16 Henel’s Rebuttal Expert statement. Docket No. 304, at 2. Izraelewicz further represents that, if this 17 information were to be publicly disclosed at this point, such disclosure could injure Plaintiffs’ 18 competitive posture in a companion case (the “Eurohealth Litigation,” 2:14-cv-980-GMN-PAL2) that 19 involves the same, or similar, invalidity arguments as this litigation. Id., at 2-3. See also Docket No. 20 242, at 3. Izraelewicz states that these two exhibits “cannot reasonably be redacted while leaving any 21 meaningful information available to the public.” Id., at 3. Finally, Izraelewicz represents that the 22 redacted portions in Defendant’s motion “contain quotes from Exhibits 1 and 2,” and that “[t]he same 23 24 25 26 27 28 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”). 2 Formerly known as the Ben Venue Litigation. 2 1 reasons that support sealing Exhibits 1 and 2 support sealing the redacted portions of [Defendant’s] 2 motion. Id. 3 Izraelewicz requests that the Court seal the redacted portion of Defendant’s motion in limine, 4 as well as Exhibits 1 and 2 in their entirety, until such time as Plaintiffs have served Mr. Henel’s expert 5 statement upon opposing counsel in the Eurohealth Litigation. Id. Izraelewicz further notes that the 6 Court previously sealed expert reports in the instant case, based on the same argument. Id., at 3; see also 7 Docket No. 242, at 2-3. Additionally, Izraelewicz submits that Plaintiffs “will file unredacted versions 8 of [Defendant’s] motion [in limine], and Exhibits 1 and 2 ... in the public record one day after Plaintiffs 9 serve Mr. Henel’s expert statement upon opposing counsel in the Eurohealth litigation.” Docket No. 10 304, at 3. 11 The Court has reviewed the redacted portions of Defendant’s motion in limine, as well as 12 Exhibits 1-2 in their entirety, and concludes that they contain information that could injure Plaintiffs’ 13 competitive posture in the Eurohealth Litigation, which warrants keeping them sealed at this time. 14 Further, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal this information that overcomes the presumption 15 of public access, and that Exhibits 1-2 cannot be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information 16 available to the public. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 IT IS ORDERED THAT for the reasons discussed more fully above and for good cause shown, 19 the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal. Docket No. 296. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, within one day of serving the opposing party in the 21 Eurohealth Litigation with Mr. Henel’s expert statement, Plaintiffs must file unredacted versions of 22 Defendant’s motion in limine and Exhibits 1-2 on the public docket in the instant case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 DATED: December 29, 2014. 25 26 27 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?