The opinion
1
2
3
4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 In re
No. C 19-05822 WHA
9 GLUMETZA ANTITRUST No. C 19-05831 WHA
LITIGATION. No. C 19-06138 WHA
10 No. C 19-06156 WHA
No. C 19-06839 WHA
11 This Document Relates to: No. C 19-07843 WHA
12 ALL ACTIONS. (Consolidated)
13 OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
14
15
16 A previous order adopted the parties’ stipulation to file omnibus motions that collected
17 the numerous individual sealing motions the parties filed in conjunction with their summary
18 judgment briefing and the corresponding Daubert motions (Dkt. No. 405). This order resolves
19 those omnibus motions and all other pending motions to seal.
20 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD.
21 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is
22 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their
24 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only
25 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
26 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the
27 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling
1 limine and Daubert motions can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098–99.
2 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only
3 of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in
4 part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-
5 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate
6 certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions
7 thereof, are sealable.” Id. “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate
8 language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any
9 document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v.
10 Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. C 18-02300 WHA, 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May
11 28, 2019) (Judge William Alsup) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).
12 This order understands the parties’ omnibus motions, Dkt. Nos. 511, 512, and 513, to
13 cover the following filings: Dkt. Nos. 425, 440, 463, 469, 470, 472, 477, 483, 486, 491, 493,
14 and 502. These filings, with one exception, address the parties’ summary judgment briefing
15 and the corresponding Daubert motions. The summary judgment order did not address the
16 parties’ Daubert motions, which a later order decided closer to the scheduled trial date. The
17 movants acknowledge the compelling reasons standard applies to these filings.
18 2. THE DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL.
19 Upon review of the direct purchaser class’s omnibus motion to seal and accompanying
20 declaration, Dkt. No. 511-1, this order finds the class has made the requisite showing to seal
21 certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored.
22 This order rules as follows:
23 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning
No.
24
425-2 Exh. A to Class GRANTED This document, not associated with
25 Counsel’s Submission of as to either the summary judgment
a Unified List of Direct highlighted briefing or Daubert motions,
26 Glumetza Purchasers portions. contains confidential and
competitively sensitive pricing data,
27
the public disclosure of which would
cause class members competitive
1
harm (see Vanek Decl. ¶¶ 5–9).
2
3
4
502-2 Exh. 5 to Reply in GRANTED Contains raw, confidential pricing
5 Further Support of as to data that is proprietary to non-party
Motion for Partial highlighted IQVIA, the public disclosure of
6 Summary Judgment on portions. which would cause IQVIA
Market Power competitive harm (see Vanek Decl.
7 ¶¶ 10–13).
8 3. HUMANA’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL.
9 Upon review of Humana’s omnibus motion to seal and accompanying declaration, Dkt.
10 No. 512, this order finds Humana has made the requisite showing to seal certain portions of the
11 submitted documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as
12 follows:
13
Dkt. No. Document to be Result Reasoning
14 Sealed
15 440-22; Expert Report of Dr. GRANTED Contains specific and confidential
445-1 Rena Conti as to information concerning rebates
16 highlighted Humana received for Glumetza.
portions. Public disclosure of this information
17
could cause Humana competitive
harm in future negotiations
18
regarding rebates with drug
19 manufacturers (see Stein Decl. ¶¶ 3-
4).
20
21 440-23; Rebuttal Report of GRANTED Contains specific and confidential
445-2 Dr. Rena Conti as to information concerning rebates
22 highlighted Humana received for Glumetza.
portions. Public disclosure of this information
23 could cause Humana competitive
harm in future negotiations
24
regarding rebates with drug
25 manufacturers (see Stein Decl. ¶¶ 3-
4).
26
27
4. DEFENDANTS’ AND NON-PARTIES SUN AND TEVA’S OMNIBUS
1 MOTION TO SEAL.
2 Upon review of the omnibus motion to seal and accompanying declarations filed jointly
3 by defendants, non-party Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and non-party Teva
4 Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Dkt. No. 513, this order finds the movants have made the requisite
5 showing to seal certain documents (and portions thereof) filed in conjunction with the parties’
6 summary judgment briefing and the corresponding Daubert motions. The proposed redactions
7 are narrowly tailored. This order notes that the direct purchaser plaintiffs oppose some of the
8 proposed redactions, arguing that several of the requests are not tailored to the relevant
9 standard, and that the justifications for other requests remain too opaque to justify sealing
10 (Opp. 1–2, Dkt. No. 526). Defendants, Sun, and Teva generally respond: (1) that the
11 contested sealing requests protect the interest of third-parties; (2) that the sealing requests
12 apply to only a few, narrow categories of information and are not boilerplate justifications; and
13 (3) that the direct purchaser plaintiffs arguments are vague, do not specify any particular
14 documents, and do no oppose the motion generally (Reply Br., Dkt. No. 529). This order rules
15 as follows:
16 Dkt. No. Document to be Result Reasoning
Sealed (and
17
Requesting Party)
18 440-11; 8/21/2020 Tucker GRANTED The material found in ¶ 118 n.6
445-9; Report (Bausch, Sun, as to ¶ 118 contains confidential, internal
19 488-5 Teva) n.6. communications of non-party Sun
Otherwise that address Sun’s manufacturing
20
DENIED. capabilities, the public disclosure of
21 which could harm Sun competitively
(Klein Decl. ¶ 59). The rest of the
22 proposed redactions contain material
related to the core issues in this
23 action and have a heavy presumption
of public visibility. These issues, in
24
fact, were discussed in the order
25 denying summary judgment (see Dkt.
No. 537 at 26). The movants’
26 justifications do not adequately
explain how or why competitive
27 harm would arise if this particular
440-12; 8/21/20 Strombom GRANTED The material found in ¶ 37 n.21 and ¶
1
474-2; Report (Sun, Teva) as to ¶ 37 71 n.64 contains confidential, internal
2 475-12 n.21; ¶ 71 communications of non-parties Sun
n.64. and Teva that address their
3 Otherwise manufacturing capabilities, the public
DENIED. disclosure of which could harm Sun
4 and Teva competitively (see Klein
Decl. ¶ 15; Savage ¶ 12). For the
5
other material, Sun and Teva’s
6 justifications do not explain how or
why the generalized, nonspecific
7 information would now cause them
competitive harm. The movants thus
8 fail to justify sealing those portions
of the document.
9
440-13; 8/21/20 Philipson GRANTED Contains specific terms of Lupin’s
10 472-2 Report (Lupin) as to Master Distribution Services
highlighted Agreement, which reveals
11 portions. confidential and sensitive information
regarding how Lupin operates its
12 business relationships and particular
pricing information, the public
13
disclosure of which would harm
14 Lupin competitively (see Gensburger
Decl. ¶ 5).
15 440-14 11/24/20 Errata to GRANTED See entry for Dkt. No. 440-13.
Philipson Report as to
16
(Lupin) highlighted
17 portions.
440-16; 8/21/2020 Jena GRANTED Contains Bausch and its customers’
18 463-5; Report (Bausch, Sun, as to confidential, sensitive business
473-2; Teva) highlighted information, including pricing
19 492-2 portions. arrangements such as rebate figures
(or information that can be used to
20
calculate rebate figures), the public
21 disclosure of which would cause
Bausch and non-parties like Sun and
22 Teva competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶
7).
23
24
25
26
27
440-18; 10/21/20 Strombom GRANTED GRANTED as to highlighted
1
447-3; Report (Bausch, Sun, in part and portions of: ¶ 29 after “before and
2 466-57; Teva) DENIED in after the approval”; ¶ 29 nn.18–21; ¶
475-14; part. 30 n.22 (ll. 10–15); ¶ 43; ¶ 69 n.93;
3 485-3 Exhs. 4a–4b. These portions contain
confidential and sensitive business
4 information, including information
from non-parties, the public
5
disclosure of which would cause the
6 movants competitive harm (see Rush
Decl. ¶ 6; Klein Decl. ¶ 15; Savage
7 Decl. ¶ 12). For the other material,
the movants’ justifications do not
8 explain how or why the generalized,
nonspecific information would now
9
cause them competitive harm. The
10 movants thus fail to justify sealing
those portions of the document.
11 440-19; 7/24/20 McGuire GRANTED Contains confidential, sensitive
445-8; Report (Bausch, as to business information, including
12 464-36; Lupin, Sun, Teva) highlighted pricing forecasts and contract terms,
488-10; portions. which would cause defendants and
13
493-46 non-parties competitive harm if
14 publicly disclosed (see Rush Decl. ¶¶
6, 8; Gensburger Decl. ¶ 5; Klein
15 Decl. ¶ 11; Savage ¶ 11).
440-20; 7/24/20 Lentz Report GRANTED Contains confidential and proprietary
16
445-5; (Sun) as to details about the specifications and
17 466-59; highlighted formulation of non-party Sun’s
478-3; portions. products, public disclosure of which
18 487-14; would cause Sun competitive harm
488-12; (see Klein Decl. ¶ 9).
19 489-3;
493-52
20
440-21; 7/24/20 Leffler GRANTED Contains confidential details
21 445-3; Report (Bausch, as to regarding non-party Sun’s
447-8; Sun) highlighted negotiations with Assertio over
22 463-8; portion. patent licensing, the public disclosure
474-4; of which would cause Sun
23 487-2; competitive harm (see Klein Decl. ¶
493-54 7; Rush Decl. ¶ 6).
24
440-22; 9/16/20 Conti Report GRANTED Contains Bausch and its customers’
25 447-1; (Bausch) as to confidential, sensitive business
485-2 highlighted information, including pricing
26 portions. arrangements such as rebate figures
(or information that can be used to
27 calculate rebate figures), the public
Bausch competitive harm (Rush
1
Decl. ¶ 7).
2 440-23; 11/11/20 Conti GRANTED See entry for Dkt. No. 440-22.
447-2 Rebuttal Report as to
3 (Bausch) highlighted
portions.
4 445-4; 9/11/2020 Leffler DENIED. Bausch first seeks to seal portions of
486-2; Rebuttal Report the document describing the
5
487-3; (Bausch) Depomed-Santarus
6 493-55 commercialization agreement on the
ground that public disclosure of the
7 terms would cause it competitive
harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). But the terms
8 Bausch seeks to seal here are closely
related to the central issues in this
9
litigation. Bausch’s generic
10 explanation of harm does not justify
sealing in this instance due to the
11 very strong presumption of public
visibility as to these facts. Bausch
12
also seeks to seal pricing information
due to possible competitive harm
13
(Rush Decl. ¶ 7). But here, the
14 information is closely intertwined
with the Valeant price hike, which is
15 another core issue in our case with a
strong presumption of public
16
visibility. Bausch’s justification is
17 generic and does not, without more,
outweigh the public policy favoring
18 disclosure.
445-6; 9/11/2020 Lentz DENIED as The portions of the Lentz report this
19 489-4; Reply (Sun) to ¶ 17, ll. 4– order seals contain proprietary and
493-53 5. confidential information about the
20
GRANTED specifications and formulation of
21 as to ¶ 17 non-party Sun’s products, the public
n.9, ¶ 34 disclosure of which would cause it
22 n.22. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 10).
The portions of the Lentz report that
23 this order does not seal contains
information that does not relate to
24
Sun’s products, so Sun has not
25 justified sealing of that material.
445-7 6/24/20 McGuire DENIED as Paragraph 117 concerns a core aspect
26 Report (Bausch, to ¶ 117. of this action, and Lupin has merely
Lupin, Sun, Teva) GRANTED provided the boilerplate explanation
27 as to other that the paragraph contains
portions. relating to . . . internal revenue
1
forecasting” (Gensburger Decl. ¶ 4).
2 In addition, the forecast at issue is
from 2012, and Lupin has not
3 adequately explained how disclosure
of this stale information could cause
4 it competitive harm. The other
material this order does seal contains
5
confidential information related to
6 specific details of contracts with non-
parties Watson and Sun, disclosure of
7 which would cause them competitive
harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 12; Savage Decl.
8 ¶ 11).
445-39; 8/21/2020 Byrn DENIED as For paragraph 16, Sun’s stated
9
465-13; Report (Sun) to ¶ 16. justifications do not explain how or
10 466-53; GRANTED why the generalized, nonspecific
485-10; as to other information regarding Sun’s
11 487-19 highlighted production processes would now
portions. cause Sun competitive harm (Klein
12 Decl. ¶ 14). Sun hence fails to justify
sealing the material. However, the
13
other highlighted material this order
14 seals does contain specific
confidential information related to
15 Sun’s processes, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
16
competitive harm.
17 445-40; 7/24/20 Leitzinger GRANTED Contains confidential information
447-9; Report (Bausch) as to relating to Bausch’s pricing
18 474-6; highlighted arrangements with specific
485-19 portions. customers, including competitively
19 sensitive rebate figures that factor
into net pricing paid, the public
20
disclosure of which would cause
21 Bausch competitive harm (Rush
Decl. ¶ 7).
22 463-6 7/24/20 Starr Report DENIED as Paragraph 35 contains information
(Bausch, Sun) to ¶ 35. regarding core issues in this action
23 GRANTED that carry a heavy presumption of
as to other public visibility. Those issues, in
24
highlighted fact, were discussed in the order
25 portions. denying summary judgment (see Dkt.
No. 537 at 7). In addition, Sun’s
26 boilerplate justification that the
material concerns confidential
27 settlement terms does not adequately
material would now cause Sun harm
1
(see Klein Decl. ¶ 61). The other
2 highlighted portions of the document
contain nonpublic confidential
3 information regarding contract terms
and rebate information (including
4 material from Sun), the public
disclosure of which would cause Sun
5
and Bausch competitive harm (see
6 ibid.; Rush Decl. ¶ 7).
477-6; 9/11/20 McGuire DENIED. Sun states public disclosure of
7 493-47 Rebuttal Report paragraph 33 would reveal
(Bausch, Sun) information about Sun’s
8 manufacturing capabilities (Klein
Decl. ¶ 66). But Sun’s boilerplate
9
justification does not explain how or
10 why the generalized, nonspecific
information in this paragraph would
11 cause it competitive harm. Next,
Bausch seeks to seal portions of the
12 document describing the Depomed-
Santarus commercialization
13
agreement on the ground that public
14 disclosure of the confidential terms
would cause Bausch competitive
15 harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). But the terms
Bausch seeks to seal here are closely
16
related to the central issues in this
17 action. Bausch’s generic explanation
of harm does not justify sealing in
18 this instance due to the strong
presumption of public visibility for
19 this material.
466-60; 7/23/20 Korsmeyer GRANTED Contains detailed confidential
20
493-45 Report (Sun) as to information related to non-party
21 highlighted Sun’s formulation and manufacturing
portions. of its products, the public disclosure
22 of which would cause Sun
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 22).
23 469-11; 9/11/20 Jaskot DENIED as The portions of the Jaskot report this
487-16; Rebuttal Report to ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, order seals contains confidential
24
493-51 (Sun) 18, 21. details regarding the specifications,
25 GRANTED manufacture, and formulation of non-
as to other party Sun’s products, the public
26 highlighted disclosure of which would cause Sun
portions. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 20).
27 For paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 18, and 21,
not explain how or why the
1
generalized, nonspecific information
2 would cause Sun competitive harm.
475-10 5/27/20 Strombom GRANTED Contains confidential information
3 Decalration (Sun, as to regarding details of non-parties Sun
Teva) highlighted and Teva’s manufacturing processes
4 portions. and internal decision making, the
public disclosure of which would
5
cause Sun and Teva competitive
6 harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 17; Savage Decl.
¶ 12).
7 474-14; 7/24/20 Jaskot GRANTED Paragraph 78 contains confidential
493-50 Report (Sun) as to ¶ 78. information regarding details of non-
8 DENIED as party Sun’s manufacturing
to other capabilities and processes, the public
9
highlighted disclosure of which would cause Sun
10 portions. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 68).
The other highlighted portions
11 contain no specifics regarding Sun’s
production processes, and Sun does
12
not explain how or why disclosure of
this generalized information would
13
cause it harm. Sun’s further
14 justification that the material
addresses its regulatory affairs is
15 boilerplate, and, without more of an
explanation, does not justify sealing
16
the material.
17 493-42 4/29/20 Leitzinger GRANTED Figure 1 contains Bausch’s
Decl. (Bausch, as to ¶ 53 confidential pricing information for
18 Lupin) Fig. 1. specific customers, including details
DENIED as on rebates, the public disclosure of
19 to ¶ 38. which would cause Bausch
competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 7).
20
Next, Lupin seeks to seal material
21 related to its revenue forecasting for
generic Glumetza but it provides only
22 a boilerplate justification to seal this
information at the heart of this
23 litigation. This material carries a
heavy presumption of public
24
visibility. In fact, these issues were
25 considered in the order denying
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 537).
26 Lupin has not justified sealing here.
493-43 6/24/20 Leitzinger GRANTED Contains confidential, non-public
27 Rebuttal Declaration as to rebate information for particular
portions. disclosure of which would cause
1
Bausch and other non-parties
2 competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 7).
Due, in part, to the particularly
3 narrow tailoring of the material
Bausch has justified sealing here.
4 493-49 7/24/20 Williams DENIED. Sun says that the highlighted material
Report (Sun) contains nonpublic information
5
regarding its regulatory affairs (Klein
6 Decl. ¶ 67). But Sun’s boilerplate
justification does not explain how or
7 why public disclosure of these
nonspecific, generalized statements
8 would now cause Sun competitive
harm. Without more, Sun has not
9
justified sealing this material.
10 493-5 Tucker deposition DENIED. Non-party Sun says the highlighted
Transcript (Sun) material concerns confidential
11 information regarding its
manufacturing capabilities and that
12
public disclosure would cause it
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 59).
13
But Sun’s boilerplate justification
14 does not explain how or why public
disclosure of these nonspecific,
15 generalized statements would result
in competitive harm to Sun. This
16
information also goes to the heart of
17 this action and was discussed in the
order denying summary judgment
18 (Dkt. No. 537), so there is a strong
presumption of public visibility.
19 Without more, Sun has not justified
sealing this material.
20
440-3 Motion to Exclude DENIED. Lupin seeks to seal information
21 Philipson Opinions related to the Philipson report, but
(Lupin) provides only the boilerplate
22 justification that the material
concerns how Lupin operates its
23 relationships with customers and
drafts its agreements (Gensburger
24
Decl. ¶ 5). This particular material
25 goes to a core issue in this action, so
there is a strong presumption of
26 public visibility. Without more,
Lupin has not justified sealing this
27 material.
440-5 Plaintiffs’ Motion to DENIED. Non-party Sun seeks to seal
1
Exclude Tucker information related to “the
2 Opinions (Sun) formulation of Sun’s products”
(Klein Decl. ¶ 60). But the
3 highlighted material does not contain
any details regarding the formulation
4 of Sun’s products, and Sun has not
adequately explained how or why
5
public disclosure of these
6 nonspecific, generalized statements
would cause it competitive harm.
7 440-15 Master Distribution GRANTED. Contains confidential material
Services Agreement including specific, non-standard
8 between Lupin and terms and associated fees that arose
Amerisource (Lupin, from extended negotiations, the
9
Amerisource) public disclosure of which could
10 cause Lupin and non-party
Amerisource competitive harm
11 (Burkett Decl.; Gensburger Decl. ¶
5).
12
440-24 Tucker Deposition DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 493-5.
Transcript (Sun)
13
442 Defendants’ Motion GRANTED Contains confidential material
14 to Exclude Lentz as to regarding non-parties Sun and Teva’s
Opinions (Bausch, highlighted negotiations and deliberations with
15 Sun, Teva) portions. Bausch over patent licensing, the
public disclosure of which could
16
cause them competitive harm (Klein
17 Decl. ¶ 6; Savage Decl. ¶ 11; Rush
Decl. ¶ 6).
18 443 Defendants’ Motion GRANTED The material this order seals contains
to Exclude Leffler as to p. 16 l. specific, confidential information
19 Opinions (Sun) 4 and n.11 l. regarding non-party Sun’s
5. DENIED manufacturing and product
20
as to p. 16 l. development, the public disclosure of
21 3 and n.11 l. which could cause it competitive
4. harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 8). The other
22 material Sun seeks to seal is
generalized and nonspecific, and Sun
23 has not adequately explained how or
why disclosure would cause it
24
competitive harm.
25 445-29 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains confidential and sensitive
License Agreement information about Sun’s litigation
26 between Depomed practices and products as well as
and Sun (Bausch, Sun’s expenses associated with
27
Sun) Hatch-Waxman litigation and the
existing generic drug product, the
1
public disclosure of which would
2 cause Sun competitive harm (Klein
Decl. ¶ 25; Rush Decl. ¶ 6).
3 445-30 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains confidential, sensitive
License Agreement information about non-party Teva’s
4 Between Depomed litigation practices and products, the
and Watson (Bausch, public disclosure of which would
5
Teva) cause Teva competitive harm
6 (Savage Decl. ¶ 11; Rush Decl. ¶ 6).
445-37 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Sun states public disclosure of this
7 0009986 (Sun) email thread would disclose
information about Sun’s internal
8 processes (Klein Decl. ¶ 26). But
Sun has only proffered a boilerplate
9
justification that does not explain
10 how or why disclosure of this
generalized, nonspecific information
11 would cause it competitive harm.
445-38 SUN_GLUMETZA- GRANTED. Contains confidential and specific
12
009989 (Sun) information regarding non-party
13 Sun’s internal production processes,
the public disclosure of which could
14 cause Sun competitive harm (Klein
Decl. ¶ 27).
15 463-4 BH-GLU00846857, DENIED. Bausch seeks to seal financial
BH-GLU00846879 forecasts from 2013 for several
16
(Bausch) products including brand and generic
17 Glumetza during the relevant period
of our litigation (See Rush Decl. ¶ 8).
18 Bausch provides only a boilerplate
explanation that does not clarify how
19 or why public disclosure of
Santarus’s internal forecasting from
20
2013 would now cause Santarus
21 competitive harm. Given that this
material concerns a core issue in our
22 case that carries a strong presumption
of public visibility, Bausch has not
23 justified sealing this material.
464-3 Promotion GRANTED Assertio contends the highlighted
24
Agreement between in part and provisions of the Depomed-Santarus
25 Depomed and DENIED in promotion agreement contain
Santarus (Assertio) part. confidential material that provides
26 insight into how Assertio structures
its business and licensing
27
arrangements (Schlessinger Decl. ¶¶
request as to the following provisions
1
that are closely related to the central
2 issues in this action: pp. 32–33
(Sections 7.1, 7.2); p. 35 (Section
3 7.5); p. 49 (Section 15.1). Assertio’s
generic explanation of harm does not
4 justify sealing those terms, especially
because of the strong presumption of
5
public visibility for that material.
6 Nevertheless, this order will grant
Assertio’s request to seal the other
7 highlighted provisions that are less
related to the heart of this matter that
8 provide insight into how Assertio
structures its business relationships
9
and agreements, the public disclosure
10 of which could cause Bausch
competitive harm.
11 464-4 Commercialization GRANTED Bausch contends that the highlighted
Agreement Between in part and provisions of the Depomed-Santarus
12 Depomed and DENIED in commercialization agreement contain
Santarus (Bausch) part. confidential terms (Rush Decl. ¶ 5).
13
This order DENIES the request as to
14 the following provisions that are
closely related to the central issues in
15 this action: p. 40 (Section 7.2(c)); p.
47 (Section 9.2); Schedule 7.2;
16
Schedule 7.3(b); Schedule 11.1(m).
17 Bausch’s generic explanation of harm
does not justify sealing those terms,
18 especially because of the strong
presumption of public visibility for
19 that material. Nevertheless, this
order will grant Bausch’s request to
20
seal the other highlighted provisions
21 that are less related to the heart of
this matter that provide insight into
22 how Bausch structures its business
relationships and agreements, the
23 public disclosure of which could
cause Bausch competitive harm.
24
464-6 Royalty Purchase GRANTED The highlighted provisions contain
25 and Sale Agreement as to confidential information that provides
between Depomed highlighted insight into how Assertio structures
26 and PDL Biopharma portions. its business and licensing
(Assertio) arrangements, the public disclosure
27 of which could cause Assertio
¶¶ 5–10). Due, in part, to the
1
particularly narrow tailoring of the
2 material Assertio seeks to seal,
Assertio has justified sealing this
3 information.
464-48 Amendment No. 1 to GRANTED. This agreement (which is still in
4 Royalty Purchase effect) contains confidential
and Sale Agreement provisions that provide insight into
5
and Bill of Sale how Assertio structures its business
6 (Assertio) and licensing arrangements, the
public disclosure of which could
7 cause Assertio competitive harm
(Schlessinger Decl. ¶¶ 5–10).
8 466 Defendants’ Motion GRANTED The material this order seals contains
for Summary as to material confidential, non-public information
9
Judgment (Sun, on p. 19 regarding non-parties Sun and Teva’s
10 Teva) between manufacturing processes, the public
“Watson disclosure of which may cause them
11 experienced” competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 21;
and Savage Decl. ¶ 12). Sun and Teva’s
12
“production justifications do not explain how or
issues.” why disclosure of the other
13
Otherwise nonspecific, generalized material
14 DENIED. they seek to seal would cause them
competitive harm. Without more,
15 Sun and Teva have not justified
sealing those portions of the
16
document.
17 466-13 Settlement GRANTED. Contains confidential terms and
Agreement and provisions that provides insight into
18 Release between how Assertio structures its business
Depomed and and licensing arrangements, the
19 Bristol-Myers public disclosure of which could
Squibb (Assertio) harm Assertio in future competitive
20
situations or business negotiations
21 (Schlessigner Decl. ¶¶ 5–10).
466-14 License and Services GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-13.
22 Agreement between
Depomed and
23 Doehringer
Ingelheim Int’l
24
(Assertio)
25 466-15 Non-exclusive GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-13.
License Agreement
26 between Depomed
and Jannssen
27
(Assertio)
466-21 Non-exclusive GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-13.
1
License, Covenant
2 Not to Sue and Right
of Reference
3 Agreement between
Depomed and Merck
4 (Assertio)
466-22 Deposition GRANTED. Contains confidential material
5
Transcript of Teva discussing non-party Teva’s
6 Rule 30(b)(6) manufacturing problems and the
witness (Teva). actions Teva took to resolve them,
7 the public disclosure of which would
cause Teva competitive harm
8 (Savage Decl. ¶ 12).
466-43 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains the specific, confidential
9
License Agreement terms and provisions Valeant and
10 Between Valeant and non-party Sun used to structure their
Sun (Bausch, Sun). licensing arrangements and settle
11 their patent litigation, the public
disclosure of which could cause them
12
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 25;
Rush Decl. ¶ 6).
13
466-44 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains the specific, confidential
14 License Agreement terms and provisions Valeant and
Between Valeant and non-party Watson used to structure
15 Watson (Bausch, their licensing arrangements and
Teva) settle their patent litigation, the
16
public disclosure of which could
17 cause them competitive harm (Rush
Decl. ¶ 6; Savage Decl. ¶ 11).
18 466-46 Teva_Glumetza0031 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
8 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing
19 problems and the actions Teva took
to resolve them, the public disclosure
20
of which would cause Teva
21 competitive harm (Savage Decl. ¶
12).
22 466-47 Teva_Glumetza_002 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
77 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing
23 problems and the actions Teva took
to resolve them, the public disclosure
24
of which would cause Teva
25 competitive harm (Savage Decl. ¶
12).
26 466-48 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010269 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
27
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
1
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 28).
2 466-51 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-37.
0009986 (Sun)
3 466-52 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38.
0009989 (Sun)
4 466-54 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0009967 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
5
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
6 of which would cause Sun
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 31).
7 466-55 Teva_Glumetza_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
70 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing
8
problems and actions Teva took to
9 resolve them, the public disclosure of
which would cause Teva competitive
10 harm (Savage Decl. ¶ 12).
466-64 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
11 0020467 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
12
of which would cause Sun
13 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 32).
466-66 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
14 0010037 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
15 of which would cause Sun
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 33).
16
466-67 Bausch’s Third GRANTED Sun says the material it seeks to seal
17 Supp. Objections and as to p. 22 ll. in this document contains proprietary
Responses to 16–17. and confidential details about the
18 Purchasers First Set Otherwise formulation of Sun’s products as well
of Interrogatories DENIED. as information about Sun’s settlement
19
(Sun) negotiations (Klein Decl. ¶ 23).
20 Sun’s request is GRANTED as to
page 22, lines 16–17 because the
21 information therein concerns
settlement terms, the public
22 disclosure of which could cause Sun
competitive harm. However, the
23
other portions of the document Sun
24 seeks to seal either do not relate to
Sun’s products or concern actions in
25 other litigation in federal court with a
presumption of public visiblity.
26 Without further explanation, Sun has
not justified sealing those portions of
27
the document.
466-73 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
1
0010047 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
2 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
3 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 34).
466-76 Assertio’s Second GRANTED Non-party Sun says the material it
4 Supp. Responses and as to p. 29 ll. seeks to seal in this document
Objections to 3–5. contains proprietary and confidential
5
Plaintiffs’ First Set Otherwise details about the formulation of Sun’s
6 of Interrogatories DENIED. products as well as information about
(Sun) Sun’s settlement negotiations (Klein
7 Decl. ¶ 24). Sun’s request is
GRANTED as to page 29, lines 3–5
8 because that information concerns
specific settlement terms, the public
9
disclosure of which could cause Sun
10 competitive harm. However, the
other portions of the document Sun
11 seeks to seal either do not relate to
Sun’s products or concern generic
12 actions taken in other patent litigation
in federal court with a presumption of
13
public visibility. Sun has not
14 adequately explained how or why
that information could now cause it
15 harm. Without further explanation,
Sun has failed to justify sealing those
16
portions of the document.
17 466-77 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010308 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
18 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
19 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 35).
466-82 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See Entry for Dkt. No. 466-77.
20
0010308 (Sun)
21 466-83 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010926 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
22 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
23 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 37).
466-84 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
24
0009956 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
25 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
26 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 38).
466-85 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
27
0009952 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
of which would cause Sun
1
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 39).
2 466-86 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010463 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
3 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
4 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 40).
466-87 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
5
0010731 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
6 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
7 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 41).
466-88 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
8
0009998 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
9
of which would cause Sun
10 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 42).
466-90 Teva_Glumetza_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
11 08 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing
problems and actions Teva took to
12
resolve them, the public disclosure of
13 which would cause Teva competitive
harm (Savage Decl. ¶ 12).
14 466-93 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Sun states that this internal email
0010616 (Sun) reflects Sun’s decision making and
15 product launch information (Klein
Decl. ¶ 43). But Sun does not
16
explain how public disclosure of
17 product launch information from
2016 would cause it competitive
18 harm now, nor what decision-making
is revealed and how its disclosure
19 could cause it competitive harm.
Without more, Sun has not justified
20
sealing this material.
21 466-94 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010546 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
22 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
23
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 44).
24 466-95 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010821 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
25 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
26 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 45).
466-99 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
27
0010791 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
of which would cause Sun
1
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 46).
2 469-1 Retailer Plaintiffs’ GRANTED The material on page 19, lines 12–13
Opposition to as to p. 19 ll. addresses confidential details of non-
3 Motion to Exclude 12–13. party Sun’s manufacturing processes
Leffler Opinions Otherwise and capabilities, the public disclosure
4 (Sun) DENIED. of which would cause Sun
competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 62).
5
The other material Sun seeks to seal
6 does not concern Sun’s
manufacturing processes and
7 capabilities, so Sun has not justified
sealing those portions of the
8 document.
475 Defendants’ GRANTED The material this order seals contains
9
Opposition to as to p. 8 ll. confidential information regarding
10 Humana’s Motion to 5–9, 16–21. non-parties Sun and Teva’s
Exclude Strombom Otherwise manufacturing problems and the
11 (Sun, Teva) DENIED. actions they took to resolve them, the
public disclosure of which could
12
cause Sun and Teva competitive
harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 16; Savage Decl.
13
¶ 12). For the other highlighted
14 material, Sun and Teva’s
justifications do not address
15 manufacturing problems and thus
Sun and Teva have not justified
16
sealing the material.
17 475-6 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
0010791 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
18 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
19 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 47).
475-7 Teva_Glumetza_002 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-47.
20
77 (Teva)
21 475-8 Teva_Glumetza0031 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-46.
8 (Teva)
22 475-9 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38.
009989 (Sun)
23
476-7 Bausch’s Third GRANTED See entry for Dkt. No. 466-67.
24 Supp. Objections and as to p. 22 ll.
Responses to 16–17.
25 Purchasers First Set Otherwise
of Interrogatories DENIED.
26 (Sun)
477-1 Class Plaintiffs’ and DENIED. Sun states public disclosure of this
27
Humana’s email thread would reveal sensitive
Defendants’ Motions manufacturing processes (Klein Decl.
1
to Exclude ¶ 63). But Sun’s boilerplate
2 Testimony of justification does not explain how or
McGuire and why the generalized, nonspecific
3 Leitzinger (Sun) information in this document would
cause it competitive harm.
4 485 Defendants’ Reply in GRANTED Sun and Teva assert that the
Support of Their as to p. 4 n.6 highlighted portions contain internal
5
Motion to Exclude ll. 10–14. discussions and decision making
6 Testimony of Conti Otherwise regarding their manufacturing
and Leitzinger (Sun, DENIED. processes and product characteristics,
7 Teva) the public disclosure of which would
cause them competitive harm (Klein
8 Decl. ¶ 18; Savage Decl. ¶ 12). This
order seals page 4 n.6 lines 10–14 on
9
those asserted grounds. For the other
10 highlighted material, Sun and Teva’s
justifications do not address
11 manufacturing problems and thus
Sun and Teva have not justified
12 sealing the material.
485-6 Teva_Glumetza_001 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-55.
13
70 (Teva)
14 485-7 Teva_Glumetza_002 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-47.
77 (Teva)
15 485-8 Teva_Glumetza0031 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-46.
8 (Teva)
16
485-9 Deposition GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-22.
17 Transcript of Teva
Rule 30(b)(6)
18 witness (Teva).
485-11 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
19 0010791 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
20
of which would cause Sun
21 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 49).
485-12 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-37.
22 009986 (Sun)
485-13 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-83.
23
0010926 (Sun)
24 485-14 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-84.
0009956 (Sun)
25 485-15 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-85.
0009952 (Sun)
26 485-16 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38.
0009989 (Sun)
27
485-17 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-87.
485-18 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-88.
1
0009998 (Sun)
2 487 Defendants’ Reply In GRANTED Non-party Sun states this material
Support of Their as to p. 14 l. contains confidential information
3 Motion to Exclude 14. regarding production of its products,
Leffler (Sun) Otherwise the public disclosure of which would
4 DENIED. cause it competitive harm (Klein
Decl. ¶ 63). This order seals page 14,
5
line 14 on that basis. But Sun’s
6 justification does not explain how or
why the generalized, nonspecific
7 information contained in the other
highlighted portions would cause Sun
8 competitive harm and thus does not
justify sealing that material.
9
487-17 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-37.
10 0009986 (Sun)
487-18 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38.
11 0009989 (Sun)
491-1 Plaintiffs’ DENIED. First, Assertio seeks to seal material
12
Opposition to related to its royalty agreement with
13 Assertio’s Motion PDL. Assertio contends the
for Summary highlighted material reflects
14 Judgment (Assertio, confidential information that provides
Bausch) insight into how Assertio structures
15 its business and licensing
arrangements (Schlessinger Decl. ¶¶
16
5–10). Second, Bausch seeks to seal
17 portions of the document describing
the Depomed-Santarus
18 commercialization agreement on the
ground that public disclosure of the
19 confidential terms would cause it
competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5).
20
But the parties do not sufficiently
21 explain how disclosure of the
nonspecific, generalized descriptions
22 of the agreements would cause them
harm. Moreover, the material here
23 goes to the heart of this case, and, in
fact, was discussed in the order
24
denying summary judgment (Dkt.
25 No. 537). There accordingly exists a
strong presumption of public
26 visibility here that Assertio and
Bausch’s requests have not
27 overcome.
491-3 PDL-GLU-00014975 DENIED. Bausch seeks to seal this document in
1
(Exh. 2) (Bausch) its entirety, arguing it contains
2 confidential terms “with respect to
other agreements settling patent
3 litigations,” the public disclosure of
which would cause it competitive
4 harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). But the
document includes material related to
5
the settlement agreement at the heart
6 of our litigation so there is a strong
presumption of public visibility in
7 this instance. Bausch’s request here
is generic and overbroad.
8 Accordingly, Bausch has failed to
justify sealing this material.
9
491-3 Settlement and GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-30.
10 (Exh. 7) License Agreement
between Depomed,
11 Valeant, Santarus,
and Watson (Bausch,
12 Teva)
493-1 Purchasers’ DENIED. Non-party Sun says the highlighted
13
Opposition to portions of this document “contain
14 Lupin’s Motion for confidential details of Sun’s
Summary Judgment manufacturing processes, nonpublic
15 (Sun) settlement negotiations, and internal
decision-making,” the public
16
disclosure of which would cause Sun
17 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 64).
Sun has not justified sealing here.
18 Sun has not adequately explained
why the generalized, nonspecific
19 statements it seeks to seal that
involve issues from many years ago
20
would now cause it competitive
21 harm. In addition, many of the
proposed redactions are superfluous
22 and indicate that Sun has not
appropriately tailored its request.
23 Given these deficiencies, the strong
presumption of public visibility
24
outweighs Sun’s generic claims of
25 competitive harm.
491-13 BH-GLU00709249 DENIED. Bausch says this email chain
26 (Bausch) “contain[s] highly confidential,
sensitive business information of
27 Bausch and Bausch’s specific
pricing arrangements, including
1
competitively sensitive rebate figures
2 (or information that can be used to
calculate such rebate figures), which
3 factor into net pricing paid” (Rush
Decl. ¶ 7). This internal, June 2014
4 email chain discussed the
contemporaneous price hike for
5
Gluemetza. Given the fact that this
6 document concerns the heart of this
case, and the resulting strong
7 presumption of public visibility,
Bausch’s generic justification for
8 sealing fails.
493-35 Indemnity GRANTED. Contains confidential terms and
9
Agreement Relating provisions of the agreement settling
10 to Settlement the patent litigation between
Agreement Between defendants and non-party Sun, the
11 Depomed, Valeant, public disclosure of which could
Santarus, and Sun cause the parties to the agreement
12 (Bausch) competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5).
493-58 Jaskot Deposition DENIED. Non-party Sun states that the
13
Transcript (Sun) highlighted portions of the transcript
14 contain “confidential and proprietary
information regarding Sun’s
15 manufacturing capabilities and
processes” as well as its regulatory
16
affairs, the public disclosure of which
17 could cause it competitive harm
(Klein Decl. ¶ 69). But here Sun
18 seeks to seal large portions of the
transcript that have little to any
19 connection to Sun’s stated
justifications. For example, Sun
20
seeks to seal Ms. Jaskot’s statement
21 that she only listed documents in her
report that supported her conclusions
22 (Tr. 237). Sun also seeks to seal Ms.
Jaskot’s opinions about situations in
23 the but-for world Sun would have
faced without the Lupin settlement
24
without sufficiently explaining how
25 these hypotheticals and general
observations could now cause Sun
26 competitive harm (e.g. id. at 159–61).
Sun’s overbroad, generic request
27 fails.
493-72 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information
1
0000735 (Sun) regarding production of non-party
2 Sun’s products, the public disclosure
of which would cause Sun
3 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 70).
493-73 PX0027 (Sun) GRANTED Contains confidential information
4 regarding production of non-party
Sun’s products, the public disclosure
5
of which would cause Sun
6 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 71).
493-95 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Non-party Sun explains that this
7 0010611 (Sun) ANDA status letter from the FDA
contains proprietary and non-public
8 information, the public disclosure of
which could cause it competitive
9
harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 71). But Sun’s
10 boilerplate justification does not
explain how disclosure of this status
11 letter from 2013 could now cause
Sun harm. Sun’s boilerplate
12
explanation does not justify sealing
this document.
13
493-101 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Non-party Sun explains that this
14 0000002 (Sun) patent amendment contains a
nonpublic regulatory filing related to
15 its pharmaceutical products, the
public disclosure of which would
16
cause it competitive harm (Klein
17 Decl. ¶ 65). But besides the general
cover letter, the document merely
18 contains the complaint from
Depomed, Inc. v. Sun Pharma Global
19 FZE, No. C 11-03553 JAP (TJB)
(D.N.J.) (Judge Joel A. Pisano). Sun
20
has not justified keeping this
21 document under seal.
493-110 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains confidential material that
22 License Agreement provides insight into how Bausch and
between Depomed, non-party Sun structured their
23 Valeant, Santarus, licensing arrangements and settled
and Sun (Bausch, their patent litigation as well as the
24
Sun) specific terms the parties would use
25 in settlement negotiations, the public
disclosure of which could cause Sun
26 and Bausch competitive harm (Klein
Decl. ¶ 25; Rush Decl. ¶ 6).
27
500 Defendants’ Reply in DENIED as The highlighted material this order
1
Support of Their to p. 19 seals contains confidential
2 Motion for Summary segment “a information regarding production of
Judgment (Sun) result . . . non-party Sun’s products, the public
3 attributable disclosure of which would cause Sun
to:”. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 73).
4 Otherwise For the material this order does not
GRANTED. seal, Sun has not adequately
5
explained how or why disclosure of
6 those nonspecific, generalized
statements would now cause Sun
7 competitive harm.
8 5. PURCHASERS SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO LUPIN’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION
9 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 521).
10 Direct purchaser plaintiffs conditionally filed under seal their surreply in opposition to
11 Lupin and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 521). Defendants did not file
12 a supporting declaration to establish the documents, or portions thereof, were sealable, as
13 required by our local rules. See Civ. L.R. 79-5. Therefore, the motion to file the documents
14 under seal is DENIED.
15 6. PURCHASERS’ CORRECTIONS TO THEIR OMNIBUS MOTION TO
SEAL (DKT. NO. 528).
16
17 In their motion correcting their omnibus motion to seal, Dkt. No. 528, direct purchaser
18 plaintiffs filed corrected, complete versions of documents cited in the parties’ summary
19 judgment and Daubert motions: Dkt. Nos. 493-58 and 493-59. In addition, direct purchaser
20 plaintiffs also docketed PX 1237, Dkt. No. 528-2, which had been cited in their opposition
21 briefing but not filed with the Court. First, non-party Sun’s request to seal Dkt. No. 493-58 is
22 discussed above. Because Sun did not file a further declaration regarding the corrected version
23 of Dkt. No. 493-58, the previous decision applies with equal force to the corrected version of
24 the document. Second, no party sought to seal Dkt. No. 493-59 in its omnibus motion or filed
25 a declaration supporting the sealing of the document after purchaser plaintiffs filed the
26 corrected version here, as required by our local rules. Third, no party filed a supporting
27 declaration to establish that Dkt. No. 528-2, or portions thereof, are sealable, as required by our
7. LUPIN’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
1 IN LIMINE NO. 5 (DKT. NO. 618).
2 Upon review of Lupin’s motion to seal and the accompanying declaration from non-party
3 Sun, Dkt. No. 618-1, this order finds Sun has made the requisite showing to seal certain
4 portions of the documents related to Defendants’ motion in limine No. 5. The proposed
5 redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows:
6 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning
No.
7
618-3 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
8 0030 (Sun) regarding non-party Sun’s
manufacturing processes and
9 product development, the public
disclosure of which would cause
10
Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶
11 6).
618-4 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
12 0180 regarding non-party Sun’s
manufacturing processes and
13 product development, the public
disclosure of which would cause
14
Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶
15 7).
618-5 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
16 0477 regarding non-party Sun’s
manufacturing processes and
17 product development, the public
disclosure of which would cause
18
Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶
19 8).
618-6 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information
20 0198 regarding non-party Sun’s
manufacturing processes and
21
product development, the public
disclosure of which would cause
22
Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶
23 9).
24 8. DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT WITH ASSERTIO (DKT. NO.
25 655).
26 Upon review of the direct purchaser class’s motion to seal and Assertio’s accompanying
27 declaration, Dkt. No. 655-1, this order finds Assertio has made the requisite showing to seal
1 certain portions of the class’s motion for preliminary approval of class settlement with
2 Assertio. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows:
3 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning
4 No.
654-10 | Shadowen Decl. Exh. 9 GRANTED. Contains Assertio’s detailed and
5 — Assertio financial comprehensive financial statements,
6 statements including balance sheets, income
statements, information on working
7 capital, balances in accounts
receivable, and other information
8 (Stock Decl. The public
disclosure of this confidential
9 information would cause Assertio
10 competitive harm — for example,
when negotiating business
11 arrangements, it could give the other
party undue leverage over terms (id.
%L at J] 7-11).
13 654-11 | Declaration of Dr. Mark | GRANTED Contains specific numbers for
L. Frigo as to Assertio’s cash position, working
14 highlighted capital, accounts receivable, and
15 portions. revenue, the public disclosure of
which would cause Assertio
Qa 16 competitive harm (Stock Decl. 6—
11). Notably, Assertio has not
= 17 redacted more general descriptions
8 of its financial position.
19 The movants shall file public versions of the foregoing documents in full compliance
20 with this order by FEBRUARY 11, 2022, AT NOON.
21 IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24 Dated: December 29, 2021.
26 l - IV
WILLIAM ALSUP
27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28