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

Filing 370

ORDER granting 309 Motion to Seal 301 Transcript; ORDERED that to the extent not already done, defendants shall file a redacted copy of Doc. No. 301 in accordance with this Order by 5/29/2018, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider on 5/15/2018. (dmr)

[Doc. No. 309]
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 “Joint Motion to Seal”
(“motion”)

[Doc.

No.

309]

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”),

and

plaintiffs

Shire

Pharmaceutical Development Inc., Shire Development LLC, Cosmo
Technologies Limited, and Nogra Pharma Limited

(collectively,

“plaintiffs”). The Court exercises its discretion to decide the
motion without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R.
78.1. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
The motion is supported by the “Declaration of Gregory D.
Miller” [Doc. No. 309-1] and exhibits [Doc. Nos. 309-2 through
309-6]. The parties seek to redact and seal certain portions of
1

the

transcript

from

the

October

16,

2017

telephone

status

conference [Doc. No. 301].
Defendants

aver

that

the

transcript

contains

“sensitive

proprietary business information about proprietary, confidential
product formulations and other sensitive information.” Mot. Ex. B.
at

1.

According

information

to

would

[defendants’]

defendants,
“reveal

proprietary

the

product

public

disclosure

confidential
formulations

information available to competitors.” Id.

of

such

details
and

make

of
this

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 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 transcript in detail to
decide this motion and finds that defendants have sufficiently
described the nature of the material they seek to redact and seal.1
The

subject

transcript

generally

refers

to

defendants’

confidential information about development of defendants’ ANDA
product formulation. The Court agrees there exists a legitimate
private interest in keeping the cited portions of the subject
transcript under seal. The Court further finds that if the subject
information is 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 certain limited portions of the subject transcript.

The specific page and line designations of the transcript
defendants seek to redact are listed in the Miller Declaration and
Index [Doc. Nos. 309-1 (¶ 6), 309-3] filed in support of the
present motion.
1

3

The Court further finds the motion is properly supported by a
Declaration executed pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 15th day of May, 2018, that the
“Joint Motion to Seal” [Doc. No. 309] is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain under
seal the transcript from the October 16, 2017 status conference
[Doc. No. 301]; and it is further
ORDERED that to the extent not already done, defendants shall
file a redacted copy of Doc. No. 301 in accordance with this Order
by May 29, 2018.

/s/ Joel Schneider
JOEL SCHNEIDER
United States Magistrate Judge

4