Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 1596
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-cv-391-ES-JAD
`Consolidated
`
`
`
`Motion Return Date: February 2,
`2015
`
`Document Filed Electronically
`
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
` v.
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC
`and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC.’S BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT
`OF PLAINTIFF JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.’S MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Richard J. Berman
`(richard.berman@arentfox.com)
`Janine A. Carlan (janine.carlan@arentfox.com)
`Aziz Burgy (aziz.burgy@arentfox.com)
`Bradford C. Frese
`(bradford.frese@arentfox.com)
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006-5344
`(202) 857-6000
`
`Sean R. Kelly (srk@saiber.com)
`Katherine A. Escanlar (kescanlar@saiber.com)
`SAIBER LLC
`18 Columbia Turnpike
`Suite 200
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`(973) 645-4801
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-
`Plaintiff Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 1597
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.....................................................................................…1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................1
`LEGAL ARGUMENT………..…………………………………………………………….….2
`I.
`The Applicable Legal Standards for a Motion to Seal...................................2
`II.
`Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(b), Legitimate Interests Warrant the Sealing of
`the Confidential Document.………………………………................................3
`
`Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(c), Serious Injury Would Result if the
`Confidential Document Was not Sealed……………………...…………………...4
`
`Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(d), No Less Restrictive Alternative is
`Available……………………………………………………………………..…....5
`
`CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................….5
`
`IV.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 1598
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.),
`260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001).............................................................................................................2
`
`In re Gabapentin Patent Litig.,
`312 F. Supp. 2d 653 (D.N.J. 2004) ..................................................................................................3
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.,
`851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988).........................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Miller v. Indiana Hosp.,
`16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1994)...............................................................................................................2
`
`Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
`435 U.S. 589 (1978) .........................................................................................................................3
`
`Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg,
`23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994)...............................................................................................................4
`
`Publicker Indus. Inc. v. Cohen,
`733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984)...................................................................................................2, 4, 5
`
`Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
`949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. 1991).............................................................................................................3
`
`Vista India, Inc. v. Raaga, LLC,
`2008 WL 834399 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2008) ........................................................................................3
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Fleet Indus. Co. Ltd.,
`529 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ................................................................................................ 2-3
`
`Rules
`
`Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) ................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(b) ...........................................................................................................3
`
`Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(c) ...........................................................................................................4
`
`Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(d) ...........................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) ..............................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 1599
`
`Miscellaneous
`
`Restatement (Second) of Torts § 757 comment ...............................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 1600
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”) respectfully
`
`submits this Brief in further support of Plaintiff Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Jazz”) Motion
`
`pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) to Seal (ECF No. 105). Specifically, Par, in addition to Jazz,
`
`seeks to seal footnote 7 of Jazz’s December 16, 2014 Letter to the Honorable Joseph A. Dickson,
`
`U.S.M.J. (ECF No. 100) (the “December 16 Letter”).
`
`The December 16 Letter that is the subject of the instant motion to seal contains and/or
`
`references information which Par designated as “Confidential” and/or “Highly Confidential”
`
`pursuant to the Discovery Confidentiality Order (“DCO”) (ECF No. 73) entered in this case, or
`
`which must be treated as such under the DCO. Public disclosure of Par’s protectable,
`
`proprietary, and/or confidential business information would irreparably damage Par’s ability to
`
`compete effectively in the pharmaceutical marketplace as the information entails or references
`
`confidential and proprietary information concerning Par’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
`
`Strategy (“REMS”) for its proposed 500 mg/ml sodium oxybate oral solution, which solution is
`
`the subject of Par’s ANDA No. 205403 (“Par’s ANDA Product”).
`
`Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant Jazz’s motion to seal for the
`
`reasons set forth herein.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Par respectfully incorporates herein the factual details set forth in the Proposed Findings
`
`of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted herewith regarding the December 16 Letter and
`
`information sought to be sealed herein. Those facts demonstrate the basis for sealing the
`
`December 16 Letter that is the subject of this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 1601
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`The Applicable Legal Standards for a Motion to Seal
`
`There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings
`
`
`
`and records. Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677-78 (3d Cir. 1988)). The party seeking to seal any
`
`part of a judicial record bears the burden of demonstrating that “the material is the kind of
`
`information that courts will protect.” Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)
`
`(quoting Publicker Indus. Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)). This Court has
`
`the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed to the public. In particular,
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G) provides for the courts’ protection of materials containing “trade
`
`secret[s] or other confidential research, development, or commercial information[,]” upon
`
`motion by a party, to prevent harm to a litigant’s competitive standing in the marketplace. See
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Fleet Indus. Co. Ltd., 529 F. Supp. 866, 889-91 (E.D. Pa.
`
`1981).
`
`Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) places the burden of proof on the moving party as to why a
`
`motion to seal or otherwise restrict public access should be granted. Specifically, it requires a
`
`showing of:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue;
`
`the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought;
`
`the clearly defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought
`is not granted; and
`
`(d)
`
`why a less restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.
`
`The December 16 Letter contains confidential information that is the prototypical
`
`example of commercially sensitive and proprietary non-public trade secret or technical
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 1602
`
`information that the Federal Rules seek to protect from public disclosure. Specifically, the
`
`December 16 Letter contains and/or reflects statements regarding confidential and proprietary
`
`information concerning the REMS for Par’s ANDA Product—information that should properly
`
`be sealed. Frese Decl. ¶ 9; cf. In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 667 n.4
`
`(D.N.J. 2004) (noting federal government’s requirement that ANDAs remain confidential).
`
`II.
`
`Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(b), Legitimate Interests Warrant the Sealing
`of the Confidential Document
`
`
`Courts have recognized that the public right of access to judicial proceedings and records
`
`is not absolute and may be rebutted. Republic of the Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
`
`949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991). “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and
`
`files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper
`
`purposes.” Littlejohn, 851 F.2d at 678 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
`
`598 (1978)). Courts may deny access to and seal a document when it encompasses business
`
`information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing. See Littlejohn, 851 F.2d at 678
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`This Court has held that the inclusion of trade secrets and other confidential information
`
`in documents warrant the sealing of such documents. “A well-settled exception to the right of
`
`access is the ‘protection of a party’s interest in confidential commercial information, such as a
`
`trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable harm.’” In re Gabapentin Patent
`
`Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) (citation omitted). “The presence of trade secrets
`
`or other confidential information weighs against public access and, accordingly, documents
`
`containing such information may be protected from disclosure.” Id. (citations omitted). As such,
`
`a party’s confidential processes, chemical formulas and specifications, and research information
`
`should be sealed. Id. at 667-68; see Vista India, Inc. v. Raaga, LLC, 2008 WL 834399, at *2
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 1603
`
`(D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2008) (protecting “any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information
`
`which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over
`
`competitors who do not know or use it”) (ultimately quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts
`
`§ 757 comment b).
`
`The private interests at stake in this action warrant the relief sought. Here, Jazz and Par –
`
`private parties – are in dispute relating to patents and a generic drug product. The sealing of the
`
`identified document requested herein serves to protect the private proprietary business interests
`
`of Par, which has a legitimate interest in ensuring that its confidential and proprietary non-public
`
`trade secret, technical, and commercial business information remain undisclosed. If this
`
`information were to become publicly available, then Par’s competitors could potentially (and
`
`likely) use that information in the highly competitive pharmaceutical product marketplace.
`
`Therefore, public disclosure of footnote 7 of the December 16 Letter poses a substantial risk of
`
`harm to Par’s legitimate business interests and competitive position.
`
`
`III. Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(c), Serious Injury Would Result if the
`Confidential Document Was not Sealed
`
`
`This Court has discretion to balance the factors for and against access to court
`
`documents. See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994). Protection
`
`of a party’s interest in confidential commercial information, such as a trade secret, is a sufficient
`
`threat of irreparable harm, and is clearly defined as a serious injury. See Publicker, 733 F.2d at
`
`1071.
`
`If relief is not granted, Par’s designated highly sensitive and confidential information will
`
`be compromised, exposing it to substantial risks. Unless the December 16 Letter is filed under
`
`seal, and footnote 7, as identified above, redacted, competitors and others will have access to
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 1604
`
`Par’s important confidential and proprietary information that ordinarily would not be available to
`
`the public. Competitors and others in the marketplace might exploit such information to their
`
`advantage and benefit, and to Par’s unfair detriment.
`
`IV. Under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2)(d),
`No Less Restrictive Alternative Is Available
`
`The concern over the public disclosure of the confidential information must be balanced
`
`with the requirement that only the “least restrictive alternative” be utilized to restrict public
`
`access to judicial proceedings. Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1073. No less restrictive alternative to
`
`sealing is available because Par’s request is tailored to seal only the specific confidential
`
`information contained in footnote 7 of the December 16 Letter filed by Jazz, the release of which
`
`would pose a financial and competitive risk to Par. Accordingly, the only way to protect the
`
`interests of Par is to seal and redact footnote 7 of the December 16 Letter.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Par respectfully requests that the Court grant Jazz’s Motion
`
`to Seal the December 16 Letter.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 112 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 1605
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By:
`s/ Sean R. Kelly
`
`Sean R. Kelly
`Katherine A. Escanlar
`SAIBER LLC
`18 Columbia Turnpike
`Suite 200
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`(973) 622-3333
`skelly@saiber.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Richard J. Berman
`Janine A. Carlan
`Aziz Burgy
`Bradford C. Frese
`ARENT FOX LLP
`1717 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036-5342
`(202) 857-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Par Pharmaceutical, Inc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 23, 2015
`
`
`
`
`