INDIVIOR INC. et al v. DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES S.A. et al

Filing 512

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER TO REDACT AND SEAL MATERIALS that D.E. Nos. 499 and 501 shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk of Court; that redacted versions of the transcripts in which only the confidential information described in Defendants ' motion has been redacted, shall be available on the public docket; that Defendants shall prepare redacted transcripts consistent with the terms of this Order and shall provide the court reporter with an electronic version of the proposed redacted transcript. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 6/29/2021. (sm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
INDIVIOR INC., INDIVIOR UK LIMITED and
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x

Plaintiffs,
v.
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES S.A. and
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, INC.,
Defendants.

Document Filed Electronically
Consolidated Civil Action
No. 17-7111-KM-CLW

Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J.
Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER TO REDACT AND SEAL MATERIALS
THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court on Defendants’ Notice of Motion
to Redact and Seal Portions of Transcripts of Proceedings held on April 22, 2021, and April 28,
2021 (ECF Nos. 499 and 501, respectively) (the “Transcripts”), pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c),
5.3(g), and 7.1; and the Court having considered the submission accompanying the Motion,
including the indices required by L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3), as well as the record before it, the Court
makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1.

The information that Defendants seek to seal is “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL EYES ONLY”
pursuant to the Stipulated Amended Discovery Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 406) (ECF
No. 315 in 17-7106) entered by the Court on June 26, 2020.
2.

By

designating

the

material

as

“CONFIDENTIAL,”

or

“HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL EYES ONLY”
under the Stipulated Amended Discovery Confidentiality Order, Defendants 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, contains proprietary and confidential research, development,
and business information of Defendants. The material identified herein contains information
designated by Defendants as “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL,” or
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL EYES ONLY,” and includes their trade
secrets and/or confidential research, development, or commercial information.
4.

By

designating

this

information

“CONFIDENTIAL,”

or

“HIGHLY

CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL EYES ONLY,” it is
apparent that the Defendants have indicated that the public disclosure of this information would
be detrimental to their businesses. Due to the nature of the materials herein, there is no less
restrictive alternative to sealing portions of the Confidential Materials.
5.

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

information that Defendants have designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL EYES ONLY,” the
Court concludes that the Defendants 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).
6.

The Confidential Information is identified in Exhibit A in support of Defendants’

Motion to Redact and Seal Portions of Transcripts of Proceedings held on April 22, 2021, and
April 28, 2021.
7.

Exhibit A conforms to the form of the Local Rules’ Appendix U and identifies with

particularity the information required by L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3).
2

8.

The Court concludes that (a) the materials contain Confidential Information

concerning the Defendants’ business; (b) the Defendants have a legitimate interest in maintaining
the confidentiality of the information to protect their 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 Defendants’ financial
detriment; and (d) no less restrictive alternative to sealing the subject information is available.
9.

The Defendants’ request is narrowly tailored to only the Confidential Information

contained in the above materials and has complied with the dictates set forth in L. Civ. R. 5.3(c),
5.3(g), and in case law related thereto.
10.

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

of public access to the full 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 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.” Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 143 n.8 (2d Cir. 2004).
WHEREFORE, the Court having found that there are legitimate public and private interests
that warrant the relief sought; and for good cause shown, it is:
ORDERED that the following documents and information shall be maintained under
seal by the Clerk of Court based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law:
•

Unredacted Transcript of Proceedings regarding discovery disputes
that pertain to Request for Admission responses held before
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on April 22, 2021 [ECF No. 499], as
described in Exhibit A (index) submitted in support of the Motion; and

3

•

Unredacted Transcript of Proceedings regarding discovery disputes
that pertain to 30(b)(6) witness preparedness held before
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on April 28, 2021 [ECF No. 501], as
described in Exhibit A (index) submitted in support of the Motion.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that redacted versions of the transcripts, in which only the confidential
information described in Defendants' motion has been redacted, shall be available on the public docket;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall prepare redacted transcripts consistent with the
terms of this Order and shall provide the court reporter with an electronic version of the proposed
redacted transcript.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:
Newark, New Jersey

Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.

4