Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Celgene Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

October 30, 2017

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CELGENE CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MYLAN'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL

          MICHAEL A. HAMMER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court upon the Motion of Plaintiff Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan"), pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c), to permanently seal portions of the transcript of the teleconference before Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on July 24, 2017 (Dkt. No. 256), which was filed under temporary seal ("the Confidential Information"); and Mylan having reported to the Court that Defendant Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") does not oppose and instead consents to entry of the within Order; and the Court having considered the papers submitted in support of the within Motion; and the Court having found that the standards of Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2) have been met and support the sealing of the Confidential Information as set forth below; and for the reasons set forth in the record of the proceedings, and for other and good cause having been shown;

         The Court adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

         I. The Nature of the Materials or Proceedings at Issue

         A. Findings of Fact

         1. Mylan seeks to permanently seal its Confidential Information.

         2. Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) requires the moving party to show: (a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue;

(b) the legitimate private or public interests which warrant 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.

         3. The Confidential Information that is the subject of this Motion was designated as "CONFIDENTIAL, " "AEO, " or "OAEO" pursuant to a Discovery Confidentiality Order in place in this matter (Dkt. No. 164).

         B. Conclusions of Law

         4. Common law recognizes a 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)).

         5. This Court has the power to seal where confidential information may be disclosed to the public. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1)(G) allows the court to protect 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.