finding that “[c]onfidential business information dating back even a decade or more may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “[c]onfidential business information dating back even a decade or more may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
e@ —————Oe Os
Morgan Lewis DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED:__5/3/2023
R. Brendan Fee
Partner
+1.215.963.5136
brendan.fee@morganlewis.com
May 2, 2023
VIA ECF Application GRANTED. For the reasons set forth herein,
The Honorable Stewart D. Aaron the Court finds that the proposed redactions are
narrowly tailored to prevent the dissemination of
United States District Court a: tae .
□□ competitively sensitive information. SO ORDERED.
Southern District of New York Dated: Mav 3, 2023
Daniel Patrick Moynihan aregemey © At Cf Gn
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re: Supplemental Letter Motion to Seal — Jn re ACTOS Antitrust Litig. (1:13-cv-
09244-RA-SDA)
Dear Judge Aaron:
Pursuant to Your Honor’s Order that Takeda “make a further application in support of” its
motion to seal information in Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Letter Motion for
Discovery Conference Concerning Depositions (ECF No. 508), Takeda submits this letter
in further support of sealing certain information that is currently redacted.
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, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). Such competing considerations include the “need to
protect sensitive commercial information from disclosure to competitors seeking an
advantage.” Johnson v. Tennyson, No. 22-CV-05683 (SDA), 2023 WL 2423965, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2023) (Aaron, J.) (quoting /n re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve
Coffee Antitrust Litig., No. 14-MC-02542 (VSB), 2014 WL 12772236, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 5, 2014)). If competing considerations outweigh the presumption of access, the
sealing of information should be narrowly tailored. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 126.
Here, after additional careful review of the information currently redacted, Takeda requests
that the Court maintain under seal only the information in the two parentheticals in the first
paragraph of page 8 of Ex. N (ECF No. 489-2) regarding a settlement term that Takeda
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 © +1.215.963.5000
United States @ +1.215.963.5001
was considering as part of the Actos patent litigations. These parentheticals reveal
competitively sensitive information about Takeda’s past practices and strategies for
settling patent infringement lawsuits against generic manufacturers seeking to market
generic versions of Takeda’s patented branded products. See Encyclopedia Brown Prods.,
Ltd. v. Home Box Off., Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding that
“[c]onfidential business information dating back even a decade or more may provide
valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek
to exploit”). If made public, this information could be used to Takeda’s detriment in
current and future settlement negotiations. These proposed redactions are narrowly
tailored to prevent the dissemination of this competitively sensitive information and to
avoid future injury to Takeda.
We appreciate Your Honor’s consideration of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ R. Brendan Fee
R.Brendan Fee
Attorney for Defendants Takeda Pharmaceutical
Company Limited, Takeda America Holdings,
Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and
Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.