SHIRE PHARMACEUTICAL DEVELOPMENT INC. et al v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC et al

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)

[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