Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC

Filing 426

ORDER granting #327 Motion to Seal; granting #337 Motion to Seal. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 1/9/2022. (Sellers, N.)

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 the following motions:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Response in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and supporting declaration [DE #327]; and
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Defendant’s Response in

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion
to Dismiss, Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay and exhibits thereto,
and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay and
its proposed reply [DE #337].
The parties seek to seal the filings on the ground they contain confidential
business and technical information, including information concerning third parties’
processes for the manufacture of azoxystrobin and confidential communications and
agreements with other entities, non-public legal matters, 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” (Def.’s Mot. Seal [DE #327] at 2-3; Pl.’s Mot.

Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 426 Filed 01/09/22 Page 1 of 3

Seal [DE #337] at 2.) Where appropriate, the parties have filed proposed redacted
versions of the documents, omitting the portions they contend should not be available
to the public.
For the reasons set forth in the parties’ motions and supporting memoranda,
the court finds that the public’s common law right of access is outweighed by the
interests of the parties and third-party manufacturers in protecting against
competitive and/or financial harm were such information made public. In re Knight

Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984). Public notice of the parties’ requests to seal
and a reasonable opportunity to object have been provided by the filing of their
motions, and no objections have been filed with the court. Moreover, the parties have
narrowly tailored their requests to remove only information that is sensitive and
confidential and not otherwise publicly known. Accordingly, the motions to seal are
allowed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal
[DE #327] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [DE #337] and ORDERS as follows:
1.

The following filings shall be SEALED:

a.
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss
[DE #319] and the proposed redacted version filed at DE #328;
b.

Declaration of Randall Canady [DE #320];

c.
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss
[DE #334]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on
the court’s docket at DE # 338-4;

2
Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 426 Filed 01/09/22 Page 2 of 3

d.
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay
Discovery [DE #323]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the
public on the court’s docket at DE # 338-5;
e.
Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 to Declaration of Robert J.
Scheffel [DE ## 324-1, 324-2, 324-4, 325-5, 324-6, 324-8, 324-9].
Redacted versions of these filings are available to the public on the
court’s docket at DE ## 338-6, 338-7, 338-8, 338-9, 338-10, 338-11, 33812;
f.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of
Motion to Stay [DE #335]. A redacted version of this filing is available
to the public on the court’s docket at DE # 338-13; and
g.
Plaintiff’s proposed Reply in Support of Motion to Stay [DE
#335-1]. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on the
court’s docket at DE # 338-14.
2.

Within seven (7) days of the date this order is entered, the parties shall

prepare and file a publicly available version of Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion to Dismiss redacting the sealed information.
This 9th day of January 2022.
_______________________________
__
__
__
_ _ _ ___
__________________________________________
KIMBERLY A. SWANK
LY
LY
United States Magistrate Judge

3
Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 426 Filed 01/09/22 Page 3 of 3