“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ae
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ty FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK —_—_—_—_—
DATE FILED:__4/11/2023___
IN RE ACTOS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Master File No. 1:13-cv-09244 (RA) (SDA)
ALL ACTIONS
ORDER
STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion addressing certain disputes that have
arisen concerning depositions and Plaintiffs’ related motion to seal. (Pls.’ 4/4/2023 Ltr. Mot., ECF
No. 483/484; 4/7/2023 Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 486.) Following a telephone conference with the
parties, and for the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. As agreed upon by the parties during today’s telephone conference, Takeda shall
produce Mr. Buonaiuto as Takedas’ 30(b)(6) designee for a deposition not to exceed
14 hours.
2. Takeda’s 30(b)(6) designee shall be prepared to testify as to topics 1-7 for the time
period beginning March 30, 2010.
3. Having considered the relevant factors, see, e.g., DoubleLine Cap. LP v. Odebrecht
Fin., Ltd., No. 17-CV-04576 (GHW) (BCM), 2022 WL 2162992, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 31,
2022) (setting forth five factors considered by courts in this district in determining
whether an individual is a managing agent of a corporate party); Dubai Islamic Bank
v. Citibank, N.A., No. 99-CV-01930 (RMB) (TH), 2002 WL 1159699, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May
31, 2002), the Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented “enough evidence to show
that there is at least a close question” whether Mr. Inaba is a managing agent of
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, see id., including Mr. Inaba’s position and
his role with respect to the ACTOS patents. (See Pls.’ 4/4/2023 Ltr. Mot. at 3 & Exs. A,
F, G, I; Pls.’ 4/10/2023 Reply, ECF No. 490/491, at 3-4.); Accordingly, Takeda must
produce Mr. Inaba for a deposition outside of Japan in accordance with the Court’s
November 5, 2022 Order.
It is further Ordered that Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is GRANTED. Although “[t]he common
law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right
is not absolute and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of
access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11920 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commcns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)
(“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion
to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Here, the
Court finds that the proposed redactions and sealing requests are narrowly tailored to prevent
unauthorized dissemination of sensitive business information.
It is further Ordered that the parties are directed to appear for a telephone conference
to address the Letter Motion pending at ECF No. 479/481 on April 21, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. At the
scheduled time, the parties shall each separately call (888) 278-0296 (or (214) 765-0479) and
enter access code 6489745.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
April 11, 2023
STEWART D. AARON
United States Magistrate Judge