The opinion
/s/ Alvin K. Hellerstein
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP March 3, 2022
WORLDWIDE PLAZA
HN W. WHITE TIMOTHY G. CAMERON AARON M. GRUBER ALEXANDRA C. DENNIN
R. CHESLER KARIN A, DEMASI 825 EIGHTH AVENUE ©. KEITH HALLAM, III HELAM GEBREMARIAM
L. GORDON DAVID S. FINKELSTEIN OMID H. NASAB MATTHEW G. JONES
H. BARON RACHEL G, SKAISTIS New Yo RK, NY 1|OOI9 -7475 DAMARIS HERNANDEZ MATTHEW M. KELLY
RISTINE A. VARNEY PAUL H. ZUMBRO JONATHAN J. KATZ DAVID H. KORN
T. BARBUR ERIC W. HILFERS TELEPHONE: +1-212-474-1000 DAVID L. PORTILLA BRITTANY L. SUKIENNI
S. GOLDMAN GEORGE F. SCHOEN RORY A. LERARIS ANDREW M. WARK
HALL ERIK R. TAVZEL FACSIMILE: +1-212-474-3700 MARGARET T. SEGALL ANDREW T. DAVIS
L. BURNS CRAIG F. ARCELLA DANIEL K. ZACH DOUGLAS DOLAN
B. FORREST LAUREN ANGELILLI NICHOLAS A. DORSEY SANJAY MURTI
ITH R. HUMMEL TATIANA LAPUSHCHIK CITYPOINT ANDREW C. ELKEN BETHANY A. PFALZGRA
VID J. KAPPOS ALYSSA K, CAPLES ONE ROPEMAKER STREET JENNY HOCHENBERG MATTHEW □□ PLOSZEK
NIEL SLIFKIN MINH VAN NGO LONDON EC2Y 9HR VANESSA A, LAVELY ARVIND RAVICHANDRA
|. TOWNSEND, III KEVIN J. ORSINI TELEPHONE: +44-20-7453-1000 G.J. LIGELIS JR.
ILIP J. BOECKMAN MATTHEW MORREALE FACSIMILE: +44-20-7860-1150 MICHAEL E. MARIANI
E. CREAMER JR. JOHN D. BURETTA LAUREN R. KENNEDY PARTNER EMERITUS
V. FOGG J. WESLEY EARNHARDT SASHA ROSENTHAL-LARREA SAMUEL □□□ BUTLER
IZA J. SAEED YONATAN EVEN ALLISON M. WEIN
OMAS E. DUNN BENJAMIN GRUENSTEIN : MICHAEL P, ADDIS
|, GREENE JOSEPH D. ZAVAGLIA WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER JUSTIN C. CLARKE OF COUNSEL
VID R. MARRIOTT STEPHEN M. KESSING +1-212-474- 1934 SHARONMOYEE GOSWAMI MICHAEL L. SCHLER
A. PASKIN LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ Cc. DANIEL HAAREN CHRISTOPHER J. KELL’
DREW J. PITTS DAVID J. PERKINS > EVAN MEHRAN NORRIS KIMBERLEY S. DREXLEF
T. REYNOLDS J. LEONARD TETI, II WRITER S EMAIL ADDRESS LAUREN M. ROSENBERG LILLIAN S. GROSSBARC
TONY L. RYAN D. SCOTT BENNETT rskaistis@cravath.com MICHAEL L, ARNOLD KIMBERLY A. GROUSSE
ORGE E. ZOBITZ TING S. CHEN HEATHER A. BENJAMIN ANDREI HARASYMIAK
ORGE A. STEPHANAKIS CHRISTOPHER K. FARGO MATTHEW J. BOBBY JESSE M. WEISS
RY A. BORNSTEIN DAVID M. STUART DANIEL J. CERQUEIRA MICHAEL J. ZAKEN
February 28, 2022
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) as amended (ECF
No. 415) and applicable law, I write on behalf of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
and Novartis AG (together, “Novartis”) to request that portions of certain documents
filed in connection with the Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Production of Documents (ECF No. 433, “Plaintiffs’ Motion”) and the associated
opposition and reply papers (ECF Nos. 437, 439) remain under seal.
Novartis respectfully requests that the Court issue an order sealing certain
portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion; Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Deborah A. Elman in
Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 434-2, “Exhibit 2”); the Memorandum of Law in
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 437, “Defendants’ Opposition”); Exhibits A
and E to the Declaration of Rachel Skaistis in Support of Defendants’ Opposition (ECF
Nos. 438-1, “Exhibit A”, 438-5, “Exhibit E”); and the Memorandum of Law in Further
Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 439, “Plaintiffs’ Reply”) because they contain
information related to confidential settlement and license agreements regarding Novartis
products and information that Novartis maintains is protected by the attorney work-
product doctrine. Novartis has conferred with Plaintiffs regarding this motion. DPPs and
EPPs take no position on Novartis’s redactions but reserve the right to respond to this
motion. Retailer Plaintiffs do not oppose Novartis’s redactions.
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 1s 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.3d110 (2d Cir. 2006). This
privacy interest extends to settlement and license agreements because the interest in
maintaining “confidential information concerning an agreement with a non-party entity []
outweigh[s] the public interest in access to the judicial documents”. Refco Grp. Lid.,
LLC vy. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654RA HBP, 2015 WL 4298572, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. July 15,2015). Plaintiffs’ Motion and the referenced exhibits relate to certain
of the same confidential settlement and license agreements at issue in Novartis’s prior
motions to seal, which were granted by the Court. See ECF Nos. 302, 308,365. In
particular, Exhibit 2 discusses the terms of Novartis’s settlement agreement with Teva
concerning Lotrel, which are confidential, and references Novartis’s confidential license
agreements with multiple third parties regarding multiple Novartis products. Plaintiffs’
Motion and Exhibits A and E refer to one confidential license agreement with a third
party that was the subject of Novartis’s prior motions to seal. Under its agreements,
Novartis may not disclose the terms of the Lotrel settlement agreement, nor the existence
or terms of its other agreements with third parties.
Additionally, “courts in this District have routinely kept under seal . . .
privileged and confidential documents.” Moshell v. Sasol Ltd., No.
120CV01008JPCSDNY, 2021 WL 67107, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2021); see also
Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing & Fin., Inc., No. 13-CV-1521 (JPO), 2021 WL 839437, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2021) (“Because the redacted portions of the [documents] contain
attorney work product and attorney-client communications, the Court grants Defendants’
motion to seal.”). Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants’ Opposition and Plaintiffs’ Reply
contain details of a document that is the subject of Plaintiffs’ Motion, which Novartis
inadvertently produced and clawed back as attorney work product. That information is
protected and should not be disclosed publicly.
For the foregoing reasons, Novartis respectfully requests that Plaintiffs’
Motion, Exhibit 2, Defendants’ Opposition, Exhibits A and E and Plaintiffs’ Reply
should remain sealed in part. Novartis and Plaintiffs have filed these documents with
appropriate redactions. In the documents filed by Novartis, Novartis’s redactions are
highlighted in yellow.
Novartis is available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have
any questions or wish to discuss this request.
Sincerely,
Rachel G. Skaistis
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