granting motion to redact documents containing advertising expenditures and plans, merchandising strategies, policies, and sales
How later courts described this case
- granting motion to redact documents containing advertising expenditures and plans, merchandising strategies, policies, and sales
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP voue won vomowr
1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS LOnpom WASHINGTON, DS
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6064 LOS ANGELES WILMINGTON
R. DESAI
EMAIL: ADESAI@PAULWEISS.COM
Application granted. The redacted transcript
July 31, 2025 (Doc. 238) shall remain the publicly-filed
version of the transcript, and the unredacted
version (Doc. 233) shall remain under seal.
VIA ECF
SO ORDERED.
The Honorable Philip M. Halpern (SA ye’
United States District Judge Philip Halpern SOS
Southern District of New York United States District Judge
Hon. Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building a
300 Quarropas Street, Room 520 Dated: White Plains, New York
White Plains, New York 10601 August 1, 2024
Re: Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG et al., No. 7:20-cv-05502 (S.D.N.Y.) —
Letter Motion to Seal May 7, 2025 Hearing Transcript
Dear Judge Halpern:
I write on behalf of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) in the above-captioned matter
to respectfully request the Court’s approval to seal and file a redacted version of the transcript of
the proceedings held on May 7, 2025 (Dkt. No. 233) (“May 7 Transcript”). The May 7 Transcnpt
includes information relating to an agreement entered into between Regeneron and Vetter, which
has been produced in this case and designated as “Confidential” or “Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only”
in accordance with the Amended Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 103). Regeneron’s
proposed redaction to the May 7 Transcript is consistent with the redactions to Regeneron’s First
Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 87) that Judge Nathan approved (Dkt. No. 86). Defendants
Novartis Pharma AG, Novartis Technology LLC, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
(collectively, “Novartis”) and Vetter Pharma International GMBH (“Vetter”) (Novartis and Vetter
collectively, “Defendants”) do not oppose this motion.
A district court “has supervisory power over its own records and files,” and public access to these
records and files “has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes.” Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). While “[t]here is a
common law presumption in favor of permitting public access to judicial documents,” a “court
balances this common law presumption of access against competing comparisons, including ‘the
privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” GoSMILE, Inc. v. Dr. Jonathan Levine, D.M_D.
P.C., 769 F. Supp. 2d 630, 649 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006)). Competitively sensitive information, for example, should be
protected against public disclosure if such disclosure would cause significant and irreparable
competitive injury. See, e.g., Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth., 347 F. App’x
615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding that presumption of public access was overcome when disclosure
would subject a party to financial harm and cause significant competitive disadvantage).
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
Accordingly, courts in this District routinely seal documents to prevent the disclosure of a
party’s confidential or competitively sensitive business information. See, e.g., PDV Sweeny, Inc.
v. ConocoPhillips Co., No. 14-5183 (AJN), 2014 WL 4979316, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2014)
(granting motion to seal “with respect to those documents...containing sensitive commercial
information affecting the parties’ ongoing relationship”); Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny
Merch. Corp.,97 F. Supp. 3d 485, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (granting motion to redact documents
containing advertising expenditures and plans, merchandising strategies, policies, and sales);
Playtex Prods., LLC v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 14- 1308, 2016 WL 1276450, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
29, 2016) (granting request to seal documents concerning “Playtex’s (1) sales and revenue, (ii)
analytical testing of the Diaper Genie Refills, (111) qualitative market research, and (iv) research
and development for new products”).
Regeneron’s proposed redaction to the May 7 Transcript is narrowly tailored to protect
commercially sensitive and confidential information, including the non-public, bargained-for
terms of a development agreement entered into between Regeneron and Vetter. Importantly,
disclosure of this confidential business agreement would likely result in competitive harm to
Regeneron and Vetter in future negotiations of similar agreements with other parties. In contrast,
there is no benefit to the public from disclosure of the confidential information sought to be
sealed here. Thus, the competitive disadvantages that would flow to Regeneron and Vetter if
such information was disclosed outweighs the interest of the public, including competitors, of
viewing those specific terms. See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120.
Accordingly, Regeneron respectfully requests that the May 7 Transcript be filed under seal.
Regeneron’s proposed redaction will be filed contemporaneously under seal with this letter
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anish R. Desai
Anish R. Desai
Counsel for Plaintiff Regeneron
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
cc: All Counsel of Record (via ECF)