Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 21760
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 13 PagelD #: 21760
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`eeAoddeadeeeeeeiaeeeadedl
`
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION
`and GENEVANT SCIENCES GmbH,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`MODERNA,INC. and MODERNATX,INC.
`
`Defendants.
`MODERNA,INC. and MODERNATX,INC.,
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`ARBUTUS BIOPHARMA CORPORATION
`and GENEVANT SCIENCES GmbH,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 22-252 (MSG)
`
`REDACTED- PUBLIC VERSION
`Original filing date: June 20, 2024
`Redactedfiling date: June 21, 2024
`
`DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Morris, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`Travis J. Murray (#6882)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@morrisnichols.com
`tmurray@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James F. Hurst
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago,IL 60654
`(312) 862-2000
`
`Patricia A. Carson, Ph.D.
`Jeanna M. Wacker, P.C.
`Mark C. McLennan
`Caitlin Dean
`N. Kaye Horstman
`Shaoyao Yu
`Mara L. Greenberg
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4679
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 21761
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 13 PagelD #: 21761
`
`Noah Frank
`Alina Afinogenova
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 ClarendonStreet
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 385-7500
`
`Yan-Xin Li
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 439-1400
`
`June 20, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 21762
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 13 PagelD #: 21762
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Tintroduction..........cccccccccccccccnccecessccccccccsscccccuscccccnccuccescecccccccccncesscesccneccccnccascssecsccsscesccecessessees 1
`
`Legal Stamdard...........cccccsccccssccscscscscsesescccccccscnescseserenccccsccosssenesesenerscccsecenesesenesenenesscccsecener 1
`
`TIT.«—-_—Argument 20.....ecssscsssccrcscscssscsessecssssencssccsessccscssncescncsessccssssccssssasescncsesscssssasssssasescncsessncsesees2
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ........ccccscscsescccscscccccsscscscconsscsenencvecesseconscosenencceconenscccccnenceseconevocccccncscsesssocososesecees 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 21763
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 13 PagelD #: 21763
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Inre Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`924 F.3d 662 (3d Cir. 2019)... ee ceecscessecsceeeeseeesecesceeecseecaeeaeessceseecseeecessesaessseeaeseeeeaeenes 1, 2,3
`
`Bank ofAm. Nat’l Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs.,
`800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986)... cee eecsecsseeseseseceseeecceeescecseeeaeeseceseeeseecessessaesseeeaeseaeeseenaseeeeeaes2
`
`In re Cendant Corp.,
`260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001)... eee cccccsesceseesseeeeseeseeecseessceseeeseesaeseeeaesseeeeeseeeeaeeeaeeeeeaessaeees 1
`
`Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Med., Inc.,
`C.A. Nos. 17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 447 (D. Del. Jun. 16, 2020)... eee ec eeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeees 5
`
`Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Tech., Inc.,
`998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993)... eee esesecsseeseeseeesecesesesceeaeeeecenecseesaeeseecseeesesseeeaessaeaaeseaesseeeaseeneeaes 5
`
`Littlejohn v. Bic Corp.,
`851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988)... eee cecssceseeeeceseeeeeeccscescecseeeseeesceseecseeecessessaecseeeaeseaeeseeeasennseaes2
`
`Miller v. Ind. Hosp.,
`16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1994)... eee cecssceseeesceseseeesseseceseecseesseeseeeseeeaeeeesaessaeeaeeeaecseeeaeeneeeaeseaeees2
`
`Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp.,
`878 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Del. 2012)... eceeseesscesceeeecseeseeeseeeseeeaceeeessesaesseseaeseaeeaeeseseneeease2
`
`Nitto Denko Corp. v. Hutchinson Tech. Inc.,
`No. CV 16-3595 (CCC/MF), 2017 WL 2782639 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2017) .....eeeeseeeseeseeeeeeeeeeeeee4
`
`Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
`A435 U.S. 589 (1978)... ecceccssccscesecesecesceesceecceeessecseesseceeeseeeaseseeeseescessaseaessaeeaeeeaeeaeenseeaeeaessaeees 5
`
`Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg,
`23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994)... eeeccsccsccesceesceseceseseseseecseeeseeeeeeeeeseeaeeeeeaessaeeaeeeeesaeeeaeeeeeeseees2,5
`
`il
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 21764
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 5 of 13 PagelD #: 21764
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuantto the Protective Order (D.I. 91) as modified by the Court’s November14, 2023
`
`Order (D.I. 155), Defendants Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTX,Inc. (“Moderna”) respectfully
`
`movethis Court to seal Moderna’s sensitive and confidential information and to grant leave to
`
`file a partially redacted version of Plaintiffs’ June 6, 2024 Letter to Judge Goldberg Regarding
`
`Discovery Disputes and Exhibits 2-3 and 5-15 thereto (D.I. 331); and Moderna’s Opposition to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (D.I. 345) and Exhibits B and C thereto (collectively, “Moderna’s
`
`Confidential Materials”). As explained in more detail below, the portions marked for redaction
`
`contain Moderna’s sensitive and confidential information.
`
`In support of this motion, Moderna attaches as Exhibit A the Declaration of Chantal
`
`Friebertshdeuser, Senior Vice President, Commercial, Europe, Middle East and Canada at
`
`Moderna Switzerland GmbH,who is knowledgeable about Moderna’s confidential information
`
`that Moderna seeks to seal and are familiar with its sensitivity. Moderna’s Confidential
`
`Materials contain Moderna’s confidential and highly confidential information, and the Court
`
`should maintain that material under seal to prevent serious and real harm to Moderna. Release
`
`of Moderna’s confidential information tothe public and Moderna’s competitors would create a
`
`clearly defined and serious injury to Moderna,as discussed in detail below.
`
`Il.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Third Circuit common law presumes a public right of access to judicial records;
`
`however,it also protects business and financial information when access would cause economic
`
`harm, including competitive harm. In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., 924
`
`F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019). “Although the commonlawright to public access is a recognized
`
`and venerated principle, courts have also recognized the accompanyingprinciple that the right
`
`is not absolute.” In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (citations and quotations
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 21765
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 6 of 13 PagelD #: 21765
`
`omitted); see also Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988) (“Despite the
`
`presumption, courts may deny accessto judicial records, for example, where they are sources of
`
`business information that might harmalitigant’s competitive standing.”’).
`
`This presumption is overcome where a movant shows “that the interest in secrecy
`
`outweighs the presumption.” In re Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d at 672 (quoting Bank ofAm. Nat’l
`
`Tr. & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). This showing
`
`may be made by demonstrating that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to
`
`the movant and that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect. See In re
`
`Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d at 672 (citing Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)).
`
`The Court will apply a “good cause” standard justifying sealing or redacting judicial records,
`
`requiring a “balancing process, in which courts weigh the harm ofdisclosing information against
`
`the importance of disclosure to the public.” Mosaid Techs. Inc. v. LSI Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d
`
`503, 507-08 (D. Del. 2012) (citing Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir.
`
`1994)).
`
`Il.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Goodcauseexists here to seal or partially seal Moderna’s Confidential Materials because
`
`these documents contain Moderna’s confidential and highly confidential technical and business
`
`information. Specifically, as described briefly below, and further explained in the Declaration of
`
`Chantal Friebertshdeuser, the portions Moderna seeks to redact contain Moderna’s confidential
`
`information, including highly confidential and sensitive information regarding the composition
`
`of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Moderna’s sensitive material contained in confidential
`
`foreign customer contracts. Ex. A, 7 5. Disclosure of such information would cause real and
`
`serious competitive harm to Modernaand the information does not need to be disclosed to the
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 21766
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 7 of 13 PagelD #: 21766
`
`public to understandthefilings at issue. Further, Modernaseeksonly to partially seal Moderna’s
`
`Confidential Materials.
`
`Although the public’s presumptive common law right of access to judicial records
`
`attaches to materials filed in connection with a pretrial motion of a non-discovery nature, this
`
`right is “not absolute” and may be overcome by a showing that the material sought to be sealed
`
`“is the kind of information that courts will protect and will work a clearly defined and serious
`
`injury to the party seeking closure.” In re Avandia Mktg., 924 F.3d 662, 673 (3d Cir. 2019)
`
`(citation omitted). Here, the material Moderna seeks to redact from is the type of limited
`
`information of the kind that courts in the Third Circuit have recognized as protectable, namely
`
`highly sensitive and confidential business and technical information regarding the composition
`
`of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Moderna’s sensitive material contained in confidential
`
`foreign customercontracts.
`
`The harms caused by revealing Moderna’s confidential information are discussed below,
`
`and further in the attached declarations of Chantal Friebertshdeuser (Exhibit A), Senior Vice
`
`President, Commercial, Europe, Middle East and Canada at Moderna Switzerland GmbH, who
`
`is familiar with this information andits sensitivity. As Ms. Friebertshéeuser explains, there is
`
`significant competition between established vaccine suppliers, including suppliers with mRNA-
`
`based vaccines,
`
`like Moderna, and any information about one of these competitors, even
`
`seemingly minor information, may prove competitively advantageous. Ex. A, § 6.
`
`AsMs.Friebertshdeuser further explains, Moderna has always taken extensive measures
`
`to maintain the confidentiality of its highly sensitive business and technical information,
`
`including by implementing proceduresthat restrict access to sensitive information even within
`
`Moderna. Ex. A, § 4. Employees have confidentiality obligations as part of their employment
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 21767
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 8 of 13 PagelD #: 21767
`
`and are provided guidance regarding how to treat sensitive information. Jd. Specifically,
`
`confidential Moderna information is not to be disclosed outside of Moderna except under
`
`confidentiality agreement and when necessary. Jd. Documents containing such information may
`
`be marked as confidential or otherwise indicate they contain restricted or sensitive information.
`
`Id. Internal to Moderna, employee access to commercially sensitive and trade secret information
`
`is often restricted on a need-to-know basis, as determined by a person’s group or role on a
`
`project. Id. Moderna has been extremely concerned about the protection of its confidential
`
`information during this litigation and has been very careful to always protect this information.
`
`Id.
`
`As Ms.Friebertshaeuser further explains, with respect to the information contained in
`
`Moderna’s contracts with foreign third parties, Moderna owesa duty of confidentiality to these
`
`third parties which would require notice to each third party prior to public disclosure. Jd. at § 7.
`
`These third parties include primarily foreign governments. Jd. Publicly revealing terms of the
`
`contracts with third parties could cause harm to Moderna’s relationship with these third parties
`
`and give unfair advantage to competitors. Jd.
`
`Modernahas always taken extensive measures to maintain the confidentiality ofits highly
`
`sensitive business and technical information. Ex. A, 4 4. Moderna has been extremely concerned
`
`about the protection of its confidential information during this litigation and has been very
`
`careful to always protect this information. Jd. Moreover, this information is of the type that
`
`courts have recognized as protectable. See, e.g., Nitto Denko Corp. v. Hutchinson Tech. Inc.,
`
`No. CV 16-3595 (CCC/MF), 2017 WL 2782639, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2017) (granting motion
`
`to seal “confidential technical information” where such information “was not intended to be
`
`seen by competitors .
`
`.
`
`. for review and potential use against the parties” and parties were in
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 21768
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 9 of 13 PagelD #: 21768
`
`“highly competitive [] industry”); Guardant Health, Inc. v. Foundation Med., Inc., C.A. Nos.
`
`17-1616-LPS-CJB, D.I. 447 (D. Del. Jun. 16, 2020) (granting motion to redact confidential
`
`information concerning defendant’s confidential information).
`
`Disclosure of Moderna’s confidential
`
`information regarding the composition of
`
`Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Moderna’s sensitive material contained in confidential
`
`foreign customer contracts would “work a clearly defined and serious injury” to Moderna, as
`
`such disclosure would provide Moderna’s competitors, customers, and potential licensors or
`
`licensees with otherwise confidential information regarding Moderna’s products andstrategies,
`
`as well as a competitive advantage in both the vaccine supplier market and in negotiations with
`
`Moderna. See Pansy, 23 F.3d at 786. Moreover, because this “case involves private litigants”
`
`and their confidential information, there is “little legitimate public interest” in the proposed
`
`redactions. Jd. at 788. Under such circumstances, Moderna’s interest in maintaining the
`
`confidentiality of the proposed redacted information outweighs any countervailing public
`
`interest. See id. (“[I]f a case involvesprivate litigants, and concerns matters oflittle legitimate
`
`public interest, that should be a factor weighing in favor of granting or maintaining an order of
`
`confidentiality.”); Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Tech., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 166 (3d Cir.
`
`1993) (“Documents containing trade secrets or other confidential business information may be
`
`protected from disclosure” and explaining that the court has “framed the inquiry as whether the
`
`need for secrecy outweighs the presumption of access that normally attaches to such
`
`documents”); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“[C]ourts have
`
`refused to permit their files to serve as ... sources of business information that might harm a
`
`litigant’s competitive standing.”’).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 21769
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 10 of 13 PagelD #: 21769
`
`As explained above, Moderna’s Confidential Materials contain technical details
`
`regarding the composition of Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Moderna’s sensitive material
`
`contained in confidential foreign customer contracts. Moderna’s proposed redactions removethe
`
`specific confidential material at issue, leaving the remainder unredacted. These proposed
`
`redactions are narrow such that the public’s ability to understand these filings is not impaired
`
`any less than necessary to prevent the release of Moderna’s most sensitive information to its
`
`competitors, preventing clear competitive harm. Moderna’s proposed redactions are narrow in
`
`scope and refer only to Moderna’s confidential, highly sensitive business or technical
`
`information to prevent the serious harm to Moderna which would be causedbyits public release
`
`as outlined in Ms. Friebertshdeuser’s declaration.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Moderna respectfully requests the Court grant Moderna’s
`
`Motion to Seal with respect to Moderna’s confidential and highly confidential information.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 21770
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 11 of 13 PagelD #: 21770
`
`Morris, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/Travis J. Murray
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Brian P. Egan (#6227)
`Travis J. Murray (#6882)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`began@morrisnichols.com
`tmurray@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James F. Hurst
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago,IL 60654
`(312) 862-2000
`
`Patricia A. Carson, Ph.D.
`Jeanna M. Wacker, P.C.
`Mark C. McLennan
`Caitlin Dean
`N. Kaye Horstman
`Shaoyao Yu
`Mara L. Greenberg
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`(212) 446-4679
`
`Noah Frank
`Alina Afinogenova
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 ClarendonStreet
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 385-7500
`
`Yan-Xin Li
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street, 27th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 439-1400
`
`June 20, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 21771
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 12 of 13 PagelD #: 21771
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 20, 2024, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, whichwill send notification of such filing to all registered
`
`participants.
`
`I further certify that
`
`I caused copies of the foregoing document
`
`to be served on
`
`June 20, 2024, upon the following in the mannerindicated:
`
`John W. Shaw, Esquire
`Karen E.Keller, Esquire
`Nathan R. Hoeschen, Esquire
`Emily S. DiBenedetto, Esquire
`SHAW KELLER LLP
`I.M.Pei Building
`1105 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneysfor Plaintiffs Arbutus Biopharma
`Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH
`
`Daralyn J. Durie, Esquire
`Adam R.Brausa, Esquire
`Eric C. Wiener, Esquire
`Annie A. Lee, Esquire
`Shaelyn K. Dawson, Esquire
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 MarketStreet
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffArbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`Kira A. Davis, Esquire
`MorRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffArbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 21772
`Case 1:22-cv-00252-MSG Document 361 Filed 06/21/24 Page 13 of 13 PagelD #: 21772
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`David N. Tan, Esquire
`MorRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`2100 L Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20037
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffArbutus Biopharma
`Corporation
`
`David I. Berl, Esquire
`Adam D. Harber, Esquire
`ThomasS. Fletcher, Esquire
`Jessica Palmer Ryen, Esquire
`Shaun P. Mahaffy, Esquire
`Jihad J. Komis, Esquire
`Anthony H. Sheh, Esquire
`Matthew W. Lachman, Esquire
`Ricardo Leyva, Esquire
`Philip N. Haunschild, Esquire
`Falicia Elenberg, Esquire
`Kathryn Larkin, Esquire
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`680 Maine AvenueS.W.
`Washington, DC 20024
`Attorneysfor PlaintiffGenevant Sciences GmbH
`
`/s/Travis J. Murray
`
`Travis J. Murray (#6882)
`
`