Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC

Filing 418

ORDER granting 247 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 1/6/2022. (Sellers, N.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-509-D SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ATTICUS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to seal portions of Defendant’s Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery and related documents. Plaintiff seeks to seal these filings on the ground they “contain sensitive business and technical information concerning Syngenta’s confidential communications with third parties, and Syngenta’s strategies on sales, marketing, generic competition, its patent portfolio, and evaluating potential illegal azoxystrobin products and potential infringement of and enforcement of its intellectual property.” (Mot. Seal [DE #247] at 1.) Where appropriate, Plaintiff has filed proposed redacted versions of the documents, omitting the portions it contends should not be available to the public. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s motion and supporting memorandum, the court finds that the public’s common law right of access is outweighed by Plaintiff’s interests in protecting against competitive and/or financial harm to Plaintiff were such information made public. In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984). Public notice of Plaintiff’s request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to object have been provided by the filing of its motion, and no objections Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 418 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 2 have been filed with the court. Plaintiff has narrowly tailored its request to remove only information that is sensitive and confidential and not otherwise publicly known. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore allowed. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [DE #247] is GRANTED, and the following documents shall be SEALED: a. Defendant’s Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE #235]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on the court’s docket at DE #248-3; b. Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of its Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE #236]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on the court’s docket at DE #248-4]; c. Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, and refiled exhibit 3 to Declaration of Robert J. Scheffel in Support of Defendant’s Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE ##237-3, 237-5, 237-6, 237-9, 237-11, 237-13, 237-16, 237-18, 237-22, 237-24, 237-25, 237-26, 239]. Redacted versions of Exhibits 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 21, 23, 24, and refiled Exhibit 3 are available to the public on the court’s docket at DE ## 2485, 248-6, 248-7, 248-8, 248-9, 248-10, 248-11, 248-12, 248-13, 248-14, 248-15; d. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE #245]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on the court’s docket at DE #248-16; e. Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Patricia A. Carson in Support of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE #246-4]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on the court’s docket at DE #248-17 This 6th day of January 2022. __________________________________________ _______________________________ _ _ _ _ _ __ KIMBERLY A. SWANK LY LY United States Magistrate Judge 2 Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 418 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?