The opinion
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOoRE LLP
WORLDWIDE PLAZA
HN W. WHITE GEORGE E. ZOBITZ DAVID J. PERKINS EVAN MEHRAN NORRIS
R. CHESLER GEORGE A. STEPHANAKIS 825 EIGHTH AVENUE J. LEONARD TETI, II LAUREN M, ROSENBER
L. GORDON DARIN P. MCATEE DB. SCOTT BENNETT MICHAEL L. ARNOLD
BERT H. BARON GARY A. BORNSTEIN New YORK, NY |OOI9-7475 TING S. CHEN HEATHER A. BENJAMIN
MERCADO TIMOTHY G, CAMERON CHRISTOPHER K, FARGO MATTHEW J. BOBBY
RISTINE A. VARNEY KARIN A. DEMASI TELEPHONE: +1-212-474-1000 DAVID M. STUART DANIEL J. CERQUEIRA
T. BARBUR DAVID S. FINKELSTEIN AARON M. GRUBER ALEXANDRA C. DENNIK
S. GOLDMAN RACHEL G. SKAISTIS FACSIMILE: +1-212-474-3700 ©. KEITH HALLAM, III HELAM GEBREMARIAM
HALL PAUL H. ZUMBRO OMIDH. NASAB MATTHEW G. JONES
LIE A. NORTH ERIC W. HILFERS DAMARIS HERNANDEZ MATTHEW M. KELLY
DREW W. NEEDHAM GEORGE F. SCHOEN CITYPOINT JONATHAN J. KATZ DAVID H. KORN
L. BURNS ERIK R. TAVZEL ONE ROPEMAKER STREET DAVID L. PORTILLA BRITTANY L. SUKIENNI
8, FORREST CRAIG F, ARCELLA LONDON EC2Y SHR RORY A, LERARIS ANDREW M. WARK
R. HUMMEL DAMIEN R. ZOUBEK TELEPHONE: +44-20-7453-1000 KARA L. MUNGOVAN
J. KAPPOS LAUREN ANGELILLI FACSIMILE: +44-20-7860-1150 MARGARET T. SEGALL TO
BERT |, TOWNSEND, It ALYSSAK.CAPLES ANDREW. ELKEN PARTNER EMERITUS
ILIP J. BOECKMAN JENNIFER S. CONWAY JENNY HOCHENBERG SAMUEL C. BUTLER
V. FOGG MINH VAN NGO > VANESSA A, LAVELY SS
J. SAEED KEVIN J. ORSINI WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER G.J, LIGELIS JR.
J. STARK MATTHEW MORREALE +]-212-474-1752 MICHAEL E. MARIANI OF COUNSEL
E. DUNN JOHN D. BURETTA LAUREN R. KENNEDY MICHAEL L. SCHLER
I. GREENE J. WESLEY EARNHARDT > SASHA ROSENTHAL-LARREA CHRISTOPHER J. KELL
R. MARRIOTT YONATAN EVEN WRITER S EMAIL ADDRESS ALLISON M. WEIN KIMBERLEY S. DREXLEF
A, PASKIN BENJAMIN GRUENSTEIN jnorth@cravath.com MICHAEL P, ADDIS NICOLE F, FOSTER
DREW J. PITTS JOSEPH D. ZAVAGLIA JUSTIN C. CLARKE LILLIAN S. □□□□□□□□□
T. REYNOLDS STEPHEN M. KESSING SHARONMOYEE GOSWAMI KIMBERLY A. GROUSSE
L. RYAN LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ So ordered. Cc. DANIEL HAAREN ANDREI HARASYMIAK
/s/ Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein A 25.2021
ugus
September 1, 2021 8 °
In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation, 1:18-cv-04361-AKH
Dear Judge Hellerstein:
Pursuant to Rules 4.A and 4.B.11 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of
Practice, Paragraph 19 of the Stipulated 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 portions of certain documents under
seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Finding an At-Issue Waiver of
Privilege and Work Product (‘Plaintiffs’ Motion”) (ECF No. 357).
Novartis respectfully requests that the Court issue an order sealing certain
portions of the Exhibits to the Declaration of Dan Litvin in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion
(the “Litvin Declaration”) because they relate to a confidential license agreement
regarding a Novartis product. 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.” /n 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
ITDMS:5698023v4:08/25/2021--05:39 PM]
the value of confidentiality in settlement negotiations.” /d. (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”).
The Court previously granted two similar motions to seal documents
related to confidential settlement and license agreements regarding Novartis products.
On October 26, 2020, Novartis filed a letter motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Rule 37
Motion to Compel Novartis to Designate a 30(b)(6) Witness (“Motion to Compel”) (ECF
No. 287), Novartis’ Opposition to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 294), and certain
exhibits to both briefs because they quoted from or related to two confidential settlement
and license agreements regarding Lotrel and another Novartis product. (ECF No. 292).
Novartis subsequently filed a letter motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support
of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 300), which also discussed a confidential
settlement and license agreement. (ECF No. 305). The Court granted those motions on
October 28, 2020 (ECF No. 302) and November 6, 2020 (ECF No. 308), respectively.
The Exhibits to the Litvin Declaration were filed under seal on August 18,
2021. Certain of the Exhibits relate to the same confidential settlement and license
agreements at issue in Novartis’s October 26, 2020 and November 4, 2020 letter motions,
which were granted by the Court. In particular, Exhibits 9 and 15 to the Litvin
Declaration discuss Novartis’s confidential license agreement with a third party regarding
a Novartis product.! Novartis cannot disclose the existence of that agreement without the
third party’s consent.
Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in Novartis’s prior letter motions
(ECF Nos. 292, 305), Exhibits 9 and 15 to the Litvin Declaration should remain 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 this request.
Sinc : —
wy
‘Julie A. North
' Exhibit 9 to the Litvin Declaration was already filed with redactions in connection with Novartis’s
motion to seal exhibits to the Motion to Compel, which the Court granted (see ECF Nos. 292, 298.2, 302).
ITDMS:5698023v4:08/25/2021--05:39 PM]
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