Filing 328

ORDER granting 232 Motion to Seal 224 Transcript of the April 4, 2017 Status Conference, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 11/22/2017. (dmr)

Download PDF
[Doc. No. 232] THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE SHIRE PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Civil No. 15-2865 (RBK/JS) v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, et al., Defendants. O R D E R This matter is before the Court on the “Motion to Seal” (“Motion”) [Doc. No. 232] filed by defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd., and Amneal Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiffs Shire Pharmaceutical Development Inc., Shire Development LLC, Cosmo Technologies Limited, and Nogra Pharma Limited “plaintiffs”) exercises its do not oppose discretion to defendants’ decide the (collectively, motion.1 motion The without Court oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is GRANTED. While the motion is unopposed, plaintiffs propose a slightly narrower redaction only on page 8 of the transcript. However, for the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted in its entirety. See Ex. B to Miller Declaration [Doc. No. 232-3]. 1 Defendants’ motion is supported by the “Declaration of Gregory D. Miller” [Doc. No. 232-1] and exhibits [Doc. No. 232-2 through 232-7]. Defendants seek to redact and seal limited portions of the transcript of the status conference before the Court, dated April 4, 2017. [Doc. No. 224]. Defendants aver that the transcript contains “sensitive proprietary business information about proprietary, confidential product formulations and other sensitive information.” Mot. Ex. B. at page 1. According to defendants, public disclosure of such information would [defendants’] “reveal proprietary the product confidential formulations details and make of this information available to competitors.” Id. Defendants further assert there is no less restrictive alternative because they are seeking redaction of only the information that will reveal “confidential and business interests.” Id. It is well-established that there is “a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). When a party files a motion to seal it must demonstrate that “good cause” exists for protection of the material at issue. Securimetrics, Inc. v. Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL 827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause exists when a party makes “a particularized showing that disclosure will cause a ‘clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id. (citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)). 2 The applicable requirements to seal documents are set forth in L. Civ. R. 5.3(c), which requires that a motion to seal describe: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available. L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3). The Court has reviewed the subject materials in detail to decide this motion and finds that defendants have sufficiently described the nature of the materials they seek to redact and seal.2 The information subject materials about generally defendants’ ANDA refer product to confidential formulation and development. The Court agrees there exists a legitimate private interest in keeping the subject materials under seal. The Court further finds that if the subject materials are made public, defendants could be harmed by way of competitive disadvantage in the pharmaceutical marketplace. Likewise, the Court finds there is no less restrictive alternative than to redact the limited portions of the transcript defendants seek to redact. The Court further finds that defendants’ motion is properly supported by a Declaration executed pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, The specific page and line designations of the transcript defendants seek to redact are listed in the Miller Declaration and Index [Doc. Nos. 232-1, 232-3] filed in support of the present motion. 2 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 2017, that defendants’ “Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 232] is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain under seal the transcript of the status conference before the Court, dated April 4, 2017. [Doc. No. 224]; and it is further ORDERED that to the extent not already done, defendants shall file a redacted copy of Doc. No. 224 in accordance with this Order by December 6, 2017. /s/ Joel Schneider JOEL SCHNEIDER United States Magistrate Judge 4

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?