Amarin Pharma, Inc. et al v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et.al,
Filing
343
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to seal (ECF No. 334 ) is denied. It is further ordered that Plaintiffs must show cause in writing within five days of the date of entry of this order (1/15/2020) why the Court should not unseal the un redacted briefs referenced in Defendants' motion to seal (ECF Nos. 335 , 336 ). If Plaintiffs do not respond within five days, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the documents. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK Document 343 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
AMARIN PHARMA, INC., et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
Case No. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK
ORDER
v.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
11
12
This is a consolidated patent infringement case brought under the Hatch-Waxman
13
Act where Plaintiffs Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited
14
seek to prevent Defendants West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and Hikma
15
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (collectively, “Hikma”), and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and
16
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, “DRL”) from launching generic competitor
17
drugs to Plaintiffs’ drug Vascepa. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal, seeking
18
to file redacted versions of their pretrial brief and pretrial proposed findings of fact and
19
conclusions of law (the “Motion”).1 (ECF No. 334.) As further explained below, the Court
20
will deny Defendants’ motion to seal, but will also give Plaintiffs an opportunity to show
21
cause why the Court should not unseal the unredacted versions of Defendants’ briefs that
22
Defendants filed with their Motion (ECF Nos. 335, 336).
23
In the Ninth Circuit there is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court
24
records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). To
25
overcome this presumption, a party must articulate “compelling reasons” justifying
26
27
28
1Plaintiffs
order.
have not filed a response to the Motion as of the date of entry of this
Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK Document 343 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 3
1
nondisclosure, such as use of the record to gratify spite, permit public scandal, circulate
2
libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
3
1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a
4
litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without
5
more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, a party seeking
6
redactions must provide “specific compelling reasons” to justify them. Id. at 1183-84.
7
“Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any
8
specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184.
9
Defendants have not met their burden here. First, Defendants do not specifically
10
describe the categories of information they seek to seal, or provide any reasons why that
11
information should be redacted beyond stating that the information generally falls within
12
the scope of the parties’ stipulated protective order and is the type of information that
13
pharmaceutical companies generally treat as confidential. (ECF No. 334 at 2.) See also
14
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183-84 (explaining this is insufficient). Second, it is clear the
15
Motion is not specifically tailored to the materials it seeks to seal because the motion itself
16
refers to “Defendants’ Motion to Compel.” (ECF No. 334 at 3.) But there is no currently
17
pending motion to compel in this case. Third, the Motion makes no effort to explain how
18
any of the information Defendants seek to seal would be considered a trade secret, or
19
exactly how its unsealing would harm Plaintiffs.
20
Further, in this case, Magistrate Judge Koppe issued an order approving the
21
parties’ blanket protective order making it very clear “there has been no showing, and the
22
Court has not found, that any specific documents are secret or confidential.” (ECF No. 70
23
at 1.) That order also imposed a procedure for filing documents under seal when the
24
sealing is based entirely on the other party’s designation of the material as confidential
25
under the protective order, but the Court cannot ascertain whether Defendants complied
26
with this procedure from reviewing the Motion. (Id. at 2.) And while the Court has granted
27
some previously-filed motions to seal in this case, the impending bench trial prompted the
28
2
Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK Document 343 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 3
1
Court to take a hard look at Defendants’ Motion. The Court is concerned about the
2
implications—logistical and otherwise—of allowing the parties to maintain some
3
information under seal at trial if they have not first specifically articulated compelling
4
reasons in support of sealing each piece of information they seek to seal.
5
However, because the unsealing of the unredacted versions of these briefs could
6
prejudice Plaintiffs—and that is the risk Defendants seem to seek to avoid in their Motion—
7
the Court will grant Plaintiffs leave to show cause in writing within five days why the Court
8
should not unseal the documents referenced in Defendants’ Motion. If Plaintiffs do not
9
respond within five days, or indicate in writing they do not object to these documents being
10
unsealed within that time, the Court will direct that the unredacted briefs (ECF Nos. 335
11
336) be unsealed.
12
It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 334) is denied.
13
It is further ordered that Plaintiffs must show cause in writing within five days of the
14
date of entry of this order why the Court should not unseal the unredacted briefs
15
referenced in Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF Nos. 335, 336). If Plaintiffs do not respond
16
within five days, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the documents.
17
DATED THIS 10th day of January 2020.
18
19
20
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?