Novartis Pharma AG v. Incyte Corporation

Filing 321

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on DEFENDANT INCYTE CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR REDACTION OF ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT: granting 320 Motion to Redact 320 MOTION to Redact. ENDORSEMENT: The proposed redactions cover far too much ground in that they do not ac tually reveal the substance of any purported work product The one exception is the sentence beginning "It does... " on page 43, line 11. Accordingly, on or before January 24, 2023, the Defendant shall file the transcript on the public docket with this redaction. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 1/17/2023) (ama)

Case 1:20-cv-00400-GHW-GWG Document 321
320 Filed 01/17/23
01/12/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MEMORANDUM ENDORSED

NOVARTIS PHARMA AG,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-cv-00400-GHW-GWG
Hon. Gregory H. Woods

v.
INCYTE CORPORATION,

Hon. Gabriel W. Gorenstein

Defendant.
DEFENDANT INCYTE CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR REDACTION OF ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT
As noticed in Defendant Incyte Corporation’s (“Incyte”) Notice of Intent to Request
Redaction (ECF No. 313) and pursuant to Hon. Gorenstein’s December 9, 2022 Ruling and the
parties’ Protective Order (ECF No. 29), Incyte respectfully moves to redact portions of the
official transcript of the telephone conference proceeding held on December 9, 2022 containing
discussion of material that is subject to the work product doctrine. In particular, Incyte seeks to
redact portions of the transcript concerning analyses of royalties for Jakafi® which were created
at the direction of counsel. The proposed redacted version of the December 9, 2022 transcript is
submitted as Exhibit A to this motion.
Under these circumstances, it is appropriate to make these modest narrowly tailored
redactions to the electronic hearing transcript. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2006).
Therefore, Incyte moves to redact the following portions of the hearing transcript:
1.

Page 36, line 20, from the words “that” to “analysis”;

2.

Page 39, lines 6 through 8, from the words “the” to “March”;

3.

Page 39, lines 11 through 12, from the words “it” to “document”;

4.

Pages 40 through 42, lines 14 through 3;

5.

Page 42, lines 10 through 12;

6.

Page 42, lines 16 through 18, from the words “in” to “were”;

7.

Pages 42 through 43, lines 21 through 20;

8.

Page 43, lines 22 through 25, from the words “the” to “protected”;

9.

Pages 44 through 45, lines 21 through 5, from the words “And” to “for”; and,

Case 1:20-cv-00400-GHW-GWG Document 321
320 Filed 01/17/23
01/12/23 Page 2 of 2

10.

Page 47, lines 4 through 6, from the words “To” to “then”.

Accordingly, Incyte respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to redact.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
By:

/s/ Eric Stops
_
Richard I. Werder, Jr.
F. Dominic Cerrito
Eric Stops
Andrew Chalson
Luke H. Phillips
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
-and-

BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Daniel P. Mach
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Tel. [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Incyte Corporation
Date: January 12, 2023
The proposed redactions cover far too much ground in that they do not actually reveal the
substance of any purported work product The one exception is the sentence beginning “It
does . . . “ on page 43, line 11. Accordingly, on or before January 24, 2023, the
defendant shall file the transcript on the public docket with this redaction.
So Ordered.

January 17, 2023

2