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

Filing 185

ORDER granting 183 Joint Motion to Seal Document. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 9/4/2019. (byl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

INDIVIOR INC., INDIVIOR UK LIMITED,
and AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 17-7106 (ICM)(CLW)
Civil Action No. 18-5285 (ICM)(CLW)
(Consolidated)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

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), to seal their Confidential an&or
Highly Confidential Information from certain portions of the following documents:

(I)

ALvogen’s Opening Brief in Support of Motion Granting Recovery on the Bond for Improper
Restraints and Setting a Schedule for an Accounting of Damages (ECF No. 149); (2) Plaintiffs’
Opposition to Alvogen’s Motion to Grant Recovery on the Bond for Improper Restraints and Set
a Schedule for an Accounting of Damages (ECF No. 154); (3) Plaintiffs! Corrected Opposition
to Alvogen’s Motion to Grant Recovery on the Bond for Improper Restraints and Set a Schedule
for an Accounting of Damages (ECF No. 156); and (4) Alvogen’s Reply Brief in Support of
Motion Granting Recovery on the Bond for Improper Restraints and Setting a Schedule for an
Accounting of Damages (ECF

No. 171) [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,” an&or “Highly Confidential—Outside Counsels’ Eyes
Only” Information under the Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order entered by the Court on
June 19, 2018 (the “DCO”) (ECF No. 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
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.

7

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 panics 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
772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994).

i

Borough ofstroudsburg, 23 F.3d

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 infornmtion 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

i’.

Warner Commc

ns, Inc.,

435 U.S.

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.”

Ganthale i Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 n.8 (2d Cir. 2004).

3

ITiSonthis

ayof

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

&•‘C.’y L. Waldor
HON. CATHY L. WALDOR, U.S.MJ.

4