Thereafter, on March 31, 2021, the Court ordered Celgene to supplement its motion to seal to provide additional authority and information in support (Dkt. No. 252).
On April 1, 2021, Mylan moved to seal its reply in support of its motion for leave to amend, and the Court ordered it to provide additional authority and information to support its request to seal this filing (Dkt. Nos. 254, 256).
Finally, on April 15, 2021, Celgene moved for leave to file under seal its reply in support of its objections (Dkt. No. 264).
Throughout these motions, the parties have asserted that the filings to be sealed discuss information deemed confidential or labeled “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case.
Thus, because the public’s right of does not extend to documents submitted in connection with a discovery proceeding, Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001); accord Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 1986), or disclosure of the contents of an Abbreviated New Drug Application, AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., No. 18-cv-00193-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 31, 2019), ECF No. 27, the Court GRANTS both Celgene’s motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 249, 257, 264) and also Mylan’s motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 254, 259), and DIRECTS the Clerk to file the exhibits attached to these motions under seal.