Health & Beauty Technologies, Inc et al v. Merz Pharma GmbH KgaA et al

Filing 234

ORDER granting 230 Motion to Seal Document 229 PROPOSED SEALED Reply In Support of Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/10/2019. (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:18-CV-00117-FL
HEALTH & BEAUTY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and MEDI-BUILD INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER
GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO SEAL DOCUMENTS REGARDING
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS

MERZ PHARMA GmbH KGAA, and MERZ
NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court upon the Motion to Seal Documents Regarding Reply in
Support of Motion to Dismiss. The reply referenced in the Motion to Seal was filed in response
to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 216].
It appearing to the Court, after considering the Motion to Seal, (i) that the Motion to Seal
has been timely filed; (ii) that the granting of the Motion to Seal will not cause any undue delay or
prejudice to any other parties; (iii) that granting the Motion to Seal will facilitate the efficient
administration of justice; and (iv) that, for good cause shown, the Motion to Seal should be granted.
In reaching this determination, the Court (i) notes that public notice of the request to seal
has been provided, and interested parties have been allowed a reasonable opportunity to object,
(ii) has considered less drastic alternatives to sealing the documents, and (3) is providing specific
reasons and factual findings supporting its decision to seal the documents. Specifically, it appears
that the documents in question relate to highly sensitive mergers and acquisition work, including
diligence, pricing, margins, and other corporate decisions. The pharmaceutical industry is

ACTIVE 45281850v1

No. 7:18-CV-00117-FL
extremely competitive. If these documents were to be made public, it could allow competitors to
observe how Defendants determine acquisition targets and conduct diligence on those targets. This
could be detrimental to Defendants’ business practice, and this is the very reason why a Consent
Protective Order was entered in the first place. For these reasons, maintaining the exhibits under
seal outweighs the public’s right to access the documents.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’
Motion to Seal Documents Regarding the Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss should be, and
hereby is, granted, and the Reply and its exhibits will remain sealed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 10th day of September, 2019.
____________________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

ACTIVE 45281850v1

2