Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC
ORDER granting 387 Motion to Seal Document ; granting 395 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
SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC,
This matter is before the court on the following motions:
Defendant’s Motion to Seal Portions of Its Response in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Partially Amend the Scheduling Order and Exhibits 1 and 3 to
its supporting declaration [DE #387]; and
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Portions of Defendant’s Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Partially Amend the Scheduling Order and
Exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16 to the supporting declaration [DE #395].
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, a non-public legal matter, and Plaintiff’s strategies
on generic competition and evaluating potential illegal azoxystrobin products and
potential infringement of and enforcement of its intellectual property (Def.’s Mot.
Seal [DE #387] at 2-3; Pl.’s Mot. Seal [DE #395] at 1.) The parties have filed proposed
Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 435 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3
redacted versions of the documents, omitting the portions they each 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
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal
[DE #387] and Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [DE #395] and ORDERS as follows:
The following filings shall be SEALED:
Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Partially Amend the Scheduling Order [DE #382] and the proposed
redacted versions filed at DE ##387-1, 388, 396-3;
Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16 to Declaration
of Robert J. Scheffel [DE ## 384-1, 384-2, 384-3, 384-5, 384-6, 384-7, 3848, 384-10, 384-11, 384-12, 384-16] and Defendant’s proposed redacted
version of Exhibit 3 [DE ## 388-2]. Redacted versions of these filings are
available to the public on the court’s docket at DE ## 388-1, 396-4, 3965, 396-6, 396-7, 396-8, 396-9, 396-10, 396-11, 396-12, 396-13; and
Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 435 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Partially
Amend the Scheduling Order [DE #391]. A redacted version of this filing
is available to the public on the court’s docket at DE # 396-14.
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 in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion to Partially Amend the Scheduling Order redacting the sealed
The clerk is directed to UNSEAL the following provisionally sealed
documents unless a motion to seal is filed within seven (7) days of the date this order
Exhibit 4 [DE #384-4];
Exhibit 9 [DE #384-9];
Exhibit 13 [DE #384-13];
Exhibit 14 [DE #384-14]; and
Exhibit 15 [DE #384-15].
This 10th day of January 2022.
KIMBERLY A. SWANK
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:19-cv-00509-D Document 435 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3
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?