Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 7190
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 7190
`
`James E. Cecchi (jcecchi@carellabyme.com)
`Melissa E. Flax (mflax@carellabyrne.com)
`Michael Cross (mcross@carellabyme.com)
`CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
`OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
`5 Becker Farm Road
`
`Roseland, NJ 07068
`
`Telephone: (973) 994-1700
`Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Lupin Limited,
`Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND
`
`Civil Action No. 13-391 (ES)(JAD)
`(consolidated)
`
`ORDER TO SEAL
`
`
`
`LIMITED,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendants Lupin Limited, Lupin
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”) and Plaintiffs Jazz Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited (collectively, “Jazz”) in the above-captioned
`
`matter, by way of the parties’ joint motion to seal information pursuant to Local Civil Rule
`
`5.3(0); the Court hereby makes the following findings:
`
`1.
`
`There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial
`
`proceedings and records.
`
`In re Cendant Corp, 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 7190
`
`James E. Cecchi (jcecchi@carellabyme.com)
`Melissa E. Flax (mflax@carellabyrne.com)
`Michael Cross (mcross@carellabyme.com)
`CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
`OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
`5 Becker Farm Road
`
`Roseland, NJ 07068
`
`Telephone: (973) 994-1700
`Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Lupin Limited,
`Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and
`JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND
`
`Civil Action No. 13-391 (ES)(JAD)
`(consolidated)
`
`ORDER TO SEAL
`
`
`
`LIMITED,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendants Lupin Limited, Lupin
`
`Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Inc. (collectively, “Lupin”) and Plaintiffs Jazz Pharmaceuticals,
`
`Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited (collectively, “Jazz”) in the above-captioned
`
`matter, by way of the parties’ joint motion to seal information pursuant to Local Civil Rule
`
`5.3(0); the Court hereby makes the following findings:
`
`1.
`
`There exists in civil cases a common law public right of access to judicial
`
`proceedings and records.
`
`In re Cendant Corp, 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 7191
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 7191
`
`Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 677—78 (3d Cir. 1988)). Courts have recognized that the
`
`presumption of public access is not absolute and may be rebutted. Republic of Philippines v.
`
`Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F .2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. 1991).
`
`2.
`
`The party seeking to seal any part of a judicial record bears the burden of
`6“
`
`demonstrating that
`
`the material is the kind of information that courts will protect.”’ Miller v.
`
`Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting Publicker Indus, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d
`
`1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)).
`
`3.
`
`While the party seeking protection has the burden of demonstrating that it is
`
`entitled to protection, courts will find that “good cause” to protect information from exposure
`
`exists where disclosure would result in a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking to
`
`overcome the presumption of access. Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787-91 (3d
`
`Cir. 1994).
`
`4.
`
`The analysis outlined by the Third Circuit has been codified in the District of New
`
`Jersey as Local Civil Rule 5.3. Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3) requires a showing of:
`
`(a) the nature
`
`of the materials of the proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or public interest which
`
`warrants the relief sought; (c) 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. See L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3).
`
`A.
`
`Nature of the Materials at Issue
`
`5.
`
`The entirety of Exhibits 2 and 8 (Bl. 354-1 and 354-2) to the letter from Melissa
`
`E. Flax to Your Honor dated May 26, 2017 (D.I. 354) (hereinafter, the “Confidential Materials”)
`
`contain information that is “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” to Jazz and subject to the Discovery
`
`Confidentiality Order entered on December 19, 2016 (D.I. 335).
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 7192
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 7192
`
`6.
`
`The Confidential Materials contain proprietary and confidential
`
`research,
`
`development, commercial, and technical
`
`information that has been designated as “HIGHLY
`
`CONFIDENTML-SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER” by Jazz.
`
`7.
`
`Public disclosure of this information would provide the public insight into the
`
`business and operations of Jazz.
`
`8.
`
`The parties’ redactions are the least restrictive alternative because the redactions
`
`are narrowly tailored to include only the Confidential Materials which contain Jazz’s Highly
`
`Confidential information.
`
`9.
`
`Jazz has a legitimate interest, which warrants the sealing of this information, and
`
`a clearly defined injury if it is not sealed.
`
`B.
`
`10.
`
`Legitimate Private or Public Interests Which Warrant Relief Sought
`
`Courts may seal documents that encompass sensitive confidential and proprietary
`
`information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.
`
`See Zenith Radio Corp. v.
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 890 (ED. Pa. 1981) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26).
`
`The District of New Jersey has held that the inclusion of trade secrets and other confidential
`
`information in documents warrants the sealing of such documents. See In re Gabapentin, 312 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004).
`
`C.
`
`11.
`
`Clearly Defined Serious Injury if Relief Is Not Granted
`
`The District Court has discretion to balance the factors for and against access to
`
`court documents. See Pansy v. Borough ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1994). Here,
`
`Jazz’s interest in secrecy outweighs any need for public access.
`
`12.
`
`If relief is not granted, Jazz’s confidential
`
`information will be available to
`
`competitors, exposing Jazz to serious competitive and financial risks.
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 7193
`
`Case 2:13-cv-00391-ES-JAD Document 369 Filed 07/24/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 7193
`
`D.
`
`A Less Restrictive Alternative Is Not Available
`
`13.
`
`The sealing of the Confidential Materials is an accepted practice in the District of
`
`New Jersey. See, e.g., Gabapentin, 312 F. Supp. 2d at 669.
`
`14.
`
`No less restrictive alternative is available to ensure that this information remains
`
`confidential because the parties’ request is narrowly tailored to seek the sealing of only the
`
`Confidential Materials which contain Jazz’s Highly Confidential information.
`
`WHEREAS,
`
`the Court, having determined that
`
`the Confidential Materials contain
`
`confidential information, and the Court having considered the written submissions of counsel,
`
`and good cause having 133:1 shown,
`IT Is on msfiday of
`
`2017,
`
`ORDERED that the parties’ Motion to Seal pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) is
`
`GRANTED; and
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall permit the Confidential
`ECF/l/os. 35%| alt! "55"l'-)\
`Materials to be sealed permanently and the Clerk shall
`
`take such other steps as may be
`
`reasonably required to maintain the confidentiality of the Confidential Materials.
`
`(
`
`JOSEP;A. geCKSON, U.S.M.J.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
