# In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation > District Court, S.D. New York · March 3, 2022 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10339202 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York - **Decided:** March 3, 2022 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10339202 ## Opinion text /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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10339202. Public record. Not legal advice.