Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC

Filing 433

ORDER granting 375 Motion to Seal Document. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank on 1/10/2022. (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 Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Appeal of Order on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery and Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Reply in Support of its Seventh Motion to Compel. Plaintiff seeks to seal this information on the ground the filing “contains or references sensitive business and technical information concerning Syngenta’s strategies on evaluating potential illegal azoxystrobin product and potential infringement of an enforcement of its intellectual property.” (Mot. Seal [DE #375] at 1.) Plaintiff has filed a proposed redacted version of the filing, 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 Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 433 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2 (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 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 #375] is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Appeal of Order on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery and Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Reply in Support of its Seventh Motion to Compel [DE #374] be SEALED. A redacted version of this filing is available to the public on the court’s docket at DE #376-3. This 10th day of January 2022. __________________________________________ ______________________________ _ _ _ __ ___ __ KIMBERLY A. SWANK LY LY United States Magistrate Judge 2 Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 433 Filed 01/10/22 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?