MERCK & CO., INC. et al v. MERCK KGAA

Filing 61

ORDER denying w/out prejudice 47 Motion to Redact 38 Transcript, to the right of any movant to file a renewed motion to seal that complies fully with all requirements and provisions of Local Civil Rules 5.3(c) and 7.1(d); that any renewed mot ion to seal shall be filed no later than January 13, 2017, and the motion shall be returnable February 6, 2017; that the materials presently under seal shall remain under temporary seal pending the Courts review of any renewed motion to seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 12/28/16. (DD, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
____________________________________
:
MERCK & CO., and MERCK SHARP :
& DOHME CORP.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
MERCK KGAA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
____________________________________:

Civil Action No. 16-266 (ES) (MAH)

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant’s motion to redact portions of the
transcript from the Court’s November 7, 2016 Scheduling Conference, D.E. 47;
and Plaintiffs consenting to Defendant’s motion to seal;
and the Court considering the submissions before it, and the applicable law;
and Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) requiring that a party seeking an order sealing or otherwise
restricting public access to Court proceedings or materials filed with the Court must file a motion
that describes:
(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the
legitimate private or public interests which warrant 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)(2);
and the Court finding that the submission in support of the motion to seal fails to provide
sufficient detail and particularity to satisfy the requirements of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2);
and Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2) further requiring that the moving party include “Proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law . . . in the proposed order[;]”

and it appearing that the proposed form of order fails to include sufficient detail and
particularity in the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law;
and the Court requiring any and all motions to seal be filed in compliance with Local
Civil Rule 5.3;
IT IS on this 28th day of December, 2016,
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal [D.E. 47] is denied without prejudice to the
right of any movant to file a renewed motion to seal that complies fully with all requirements and
provisions of Local Civil Rules 5.3(c) and 7.1(d); and it is further
ORDERED that any renewed motion to seal shall be filed no later than January 13,
2017, and the motion shall be returnable February 6, 2017; and it is further
ORDERED that nothing herein constitutes a ruling as to whether or not the material
identified warrants sealing; and it is further
ORDERED that the materials presently under seal shall remain under temporary seal
pending the Court’s review of any renewed motion to seal.
/s Michael A. Hammer_________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE