In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Wor-owiIbdE PLaza

MICHAEL A. PASKIN 825 EIGHTH AVENUE MATTHEW MORREALE ANDREW C. □□□□□

STEPHEN GORDON MICHAEL T: REYNOLOS New York, NY 10019-7475 3: WESLEY EARNHAROT VANESSA A. LAVELY

ROBERT H. BARON ANTONY L. RYAN YONATAN EVEN GJ. UGELIS JR.

eee, een renns TELEPHONE: +1-212-474- 1000 syenmmueaeren Rrslaes □□

PETER T. BARBUR DARIN P. MCATEE FACSIMILE: +1-212-474-3700 STEPHEN M, KESSING SASHA ROSENTHAL-LARR

THOMAS G, RAFFERTY GARY A. BORNSTEIN ieee LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ ALLISON □□ WEIN

MICHAEL S&S. GOLDMAN TIMOTHY G. CAMERON DAVID J. PERKINS MICHAEL P. ADDIS

RICHARD HALL KARIN A. DEMASI CITYPOINT JOHNNY G, SKUMPILJA JUSTIN C. CLARKE

JULIE A, NORTH DAVID 8. FINKELSTEIN ONE ROPEMAKER STREET J. LEONARD TETI, 1 SHARONMOYEE □□□□□□□

ANOREW W. NEEDHAM DAVID GREENWALD LONDON EC2Y SHR OD. SCOTT BENNETT C. DANIEL HAAREN

STEPHEN L. BURNS RACHEL G. SKAISTIS TELEPHONE: 4+44-20-7453-1000 TING &. CHEN EVAN MEHRAN NORRIS

KATHERINE 8. FORREST PAUL H. ZUMBRO FACSIMILE: +44-20-7860-1/50 CHRISTOPHER K. FARGO LAUREN M. ROSENBERG

KEITH R. HUMMEL ERIC W. HILFERS KENNETH C. HALCOM

DAVID J. KAPPOS GEORGE F. SCHOEN DAVID M. STUART SS

DANIEL SLIFKIN ERIK R. TAVZEL AARON M. GRUBER □□ N

mchescen Viper sees warren foiphcr our numeen Some SAMUEL 6 BUTLER

WILLIAM V. FOGG LAUREN ANGELILLI Pe 2-474-1 152 DAMARIS HERNANDEZ ee

FAIZA J. SAEED TATIANA LAPUSHCHIK ONATHAN J. KATZ

RICHARD J. STARK ALYSSA K. CAPLES () RORY A. LERARIS. OF COUNSEL

THOMAS E, DUNN JENNIFER & CONWAY ( ) iy hod, ADDR, KARA L. MUNGOVAN MICHAEL L. SCHLER

MARK |. GREENE MINH VAN Qs ak Travat MARGARET T. SEGALL CHRISTOPHER J. KELLY

tf

1?

LL ke October 26, 2020

In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation, 1:18-cv-04361-AKH

Dear Judge Hellerstein:

Pursuant to Rule 4.A and 4.B.ii of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of

Practice, Paragraph 19 of the Stipulated Protective Order (the “Protective Order”) (ECF

No. 95) and applicable law, I write on behalf of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

and Novartis AG (together, “Novartis”) requesting permission to file certain documents

under seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ Rule 37 Motion to Compel Novartis to

Designate a 30(b)(6) Witness (“Motion to Compe!” or “Mot. to Compel”).

Novartis respectfully requests that the Court issue an order sealing certain:

(i) portions of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Compel; (ii)

Exhibits to the Declaration of Dan Litvin In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel (the

“Litvin Declaration”); (iii) portions of Novartis Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (the “Opposition”) and (iv) Exhibits to the

Declaration of Julie A. North in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (the “North

Declaration”), Novartis has conferred with Plaintiffs and they take no position on

whether or not the documents should be sealed.

Under Rule 4.A of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice, a party

must obtain the Court’s authority to file documents under seal, which is appropriate if

“closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that

interest.” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 144

(2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Jn re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987)). While

there is a “common law presumption in favor of permitting public access to judicial

documents,” the court must consider the “the privacy interests of those resisting

disclosure.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In

particular, “privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a

court's balancing equation.” In re Savitt/Adler Litig., No. 95-CV-1842 (RSP/DRH), 1997

WL 797511, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1997). “There is no established presumption of

public access with respect to confidential settlement discussions and documents.”

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., No. 3:11-CV-1209 CSH, 2013 WL

4012772, at *5 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2013), Rather, “[t]he Second Circuit has recognized

the value of confidentiality in settlement negotiations.” Jd. (approving redactions of

exhibits containing confidential settlement discussions); see also Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v.

Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2015 WL 4298572, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.

July 15, 2015) (finding that the interest in maintaining “confidential information

concerning an agreement with a non-party entity [] outweigh[ed] the public interest in

access to the judicial documents”).

Further, “notwithstanding the presumption of public access to judicial

records, courts may deny access to records that are sources of business information that

might harm a litigant's competitive standing.” Jn re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258 F.R.D. 236,

244 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.

Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978)). For example, when documents “contain highly

proprietary material concerning the defendants’ marketing strategies, product

development, costs and budgeting, [] the privacy interests of the defendants outweigh the

presumption of public access.” GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M.D. P.C., 769

F. Supp. 2d 630, 649-50 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding it appropriate for materials to remain

under seal). See also United States v. Ferguson, No. CRIM. 3:06CR137CFD, 2008 WL

113654, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 5, 2008) (granting motion to seal confidential business

information “because the disclosure of this confidential information would cause undue

harm to the businesses involved”).

Exhibit 15 to the Litvin Declaration relates to the terms of the license and

settlement agreement between Novartis and third party Teva regarding the product Lotrel.

While the existence of the Lotrel settlement agreement was disclosed, see Order of

Dismissal, ECF No. 192, Novartis Corp., et. al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civ

A. No. 04-4473, (D.N.J. July 20, 2011), the terms of the agreement were not and the

parties agreed to keep them confidential absent both parties’ consent. Thus, the Exhibit

should remain sealed in its entirety.

Exhibits 14, 17 and 18 to the Litvin Declaration reflect the terms of and/or

discuss Novartis’s confidential settlement with a third party regarding another Novartis

product. As in the Lotrel agreement, Novartis cannot disclose the terms of the

agreement, nor can Novartis disclose the existence of the agreement without the third

party’s consent. As such these Exhibits should also remain sealed in their entirety.

Exhibit 16 to the Litvin Declaration is a presentation regarding strategic

business planning that includes throughout information regarding both of the confidential

settlement and license agreements discussed above and other commercially sensitive

business information that could harm Novartis’s commercial standing. It includes, for

example, information about Novartis’s business plans regarding generic entry for a

variety of drugs. The document is thus commercially sensitive and highly proprietary,

and should be sealed in its entirety.

Net RA eee ete FO OO ee Set NE Pe □□ oe ee Ce BPE Nr A ke ee oe el Fe , we wt Ne

In addition, certain sections of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, Exhibits 4

and 5 to the Litvin Declaration, Novartis’s Opposition, and Exhibits A and F to the North

Declaration quote from or relate to the same confidential settlement and license

agreements and, for the same reasons, should be sealed in part. Novartis has filed those

documents with appropriate redactions.

Novartis is available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have

any questions or wish to discuss these requests.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Julie A. North

Julie A. North

The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street, Room 1050

New York, New York 10007

BY ECF