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.)

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