INDIVIOR INC. et al v. ALVOGEN PINE BROOK, INC.

Filing 184

ORDER granting 164 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 8/20/2019. (byl)

Charles M. Lizza
William C. Baton
David L. Moses
SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 1520
Newark, New Jersey 07102-5426
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Flaint€fjs Indivior Inc.,
Indivior UK Limited, and
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.

Arnold B. Calmann
Katherine A. Escanlar
SAIBER LLC
One Gateway Center, 10th Floor
Suite 1000
Newark, NJ 07102
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
Alvogen Pine Brook Inc.
n/Wa Alvogen Pine Brook LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

INDIVIOR INC., INThVIOR UK LIMITED,
and AQUESTLVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 17-7 106 (KM)(CLW)
Civil Action No. 18-5285 (KM)(CLW)
(Consolidated)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

v.
ALVOGEN PINE BROOK LLC,

(Filed Electronically)
Defendant.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the consolidated motion of
Plaintiffs Indivior Inc., Indivior UK Limited, and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Alvogen Pine Brook LLC (“Defendant”) (Plaintiffs and Defendant,
together, “the parties”), pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) and 5.3(g), to seal their Confidential
and/or Highly Confidential Information from certain portions of the transcripts from the parties’
December 19, 2018 (DI. 81), December 21, 2018 (DI. 82), January22, 2019(D.L 97) telephone
conferences with Hon. Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J., and the parties’ January 24, 2019 in-person

hearing with the Hon. Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J. (DI. 100) [hereinafter, the “Confidential
Materials”]; and the Court having considered the written submissions of the parties; and the Court
having determined that this action involves allegations regarding the disclosure of confidential and
proprietary information; and for other and good cause having been shown; the Court makes the
following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.

The information that the parties seek to seal has been designated by the parties as

“Confidential,” “Highly Confidential,” and/or “Highly Confidential—Outside Counsels’ Eyes
Only” Information under the Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order entered by the Court on
June 19, 2018 (the “DCO”) (D.I. 46).
2.

By designating the material as “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential,” or “Highly

Confidential—Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” under the DCO, the parties have represented that the
subject information is a trade secret or confidential research, development or commercial
information within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
3.

This is a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement action. As such, a significant

portion of the materials exchanged in discovery, and subsequently filed with the Court in connection
with pretrial proceedings, contain proprietary and confidential research, development and business
information of the parties. The material identified herein contains information designated by the
parties as “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential,” or “Highly Confidential—Outside Counsels’ Eyes
Only,” and includes their trade secrets and/or confidential research, development or commercial
information.
4.

By designating this information “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential,” or “Highly

Confidential—Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only,” it is apparent that the parties have indicated that the

7

public disclosure of this information would be detrimental to their business. Due to the nature of
the materials herein, there is no Less restrictive alternative to sealing portions of the Confidential
Materials.
5.

The parties’ request is narrowly tailored to only the confidential information

contained in the above materials. In this regard, the parties have already filed redacted, nonconfidential version of the subject materials.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
6.

Upon consideration of the papers submitted in support of the motion, and the

information that the parties have designated as “Confidential,” “Highly Confidential,” and/or
“Highly Confidential—Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only,” the Court concludes that the parties have
met their burden of proving under Local Civil Rule 5,3 and applicable case law that the
information described above should be sealed. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d
772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994).

Specifically, the Court concludes that (a) the materials contain

confidential information concerning the parties’ business; (b) the parties’ have a legitimate
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information to protect its disclosure to potential
competitors who could use the information contained therein to develop and market competing
products; (c) public disclosure of the confidential information would result in clearly defined and
serious injury, including the use of the confidential information by competitors to the parties’
financial detriment; and (d) no less restrictive alternative to sealing the subject information is
available.
8.

The foregoing conclusions are supported by relevant case law holding that the right

of public access to the Ml court transcript is not absolute, and may be overcome by a showing such
as made here, in the discretion of the trial court. See Nixon v. Warner Conunc ‘ns, Inc., 435 U.s.

3

589, 603 (1978). The Court, upon such a proper showing, may in its discretion prevent confidential
information from being “transmuted into materials presumptively subject to public access.”
Gambaic

Deutsche BankAG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 n.8 (2d Cir. 2004).

1TISonthis

,2019

dayof

ORDERED that based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, that the
parties’ consolidated motion to seal is hereby GRANTED.

.‘CCzy L. WzWor

HON. CATHY L. WALDOR, U.S.M.J.

4