United States District Court, D. New Jersey, Camden Vicinage
SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the “Motion to
Seal” (“Motion”) [Doc. No. 232] filed by
defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals
of New York, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd.,
and Amneal Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (collectively,
“defendants”). Plaintiffs Shire Pharmaceutical
Development Inc., Shire Development LLC, Cosmo Technologies
Limited, and Nogra Pharma Limited (collectively,
“plaintiffs”) do not oppose defendants'
motion. The Court exercises its discretion to
decide the motion without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78;
L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the following reasons, defendants'
motion is GRANTED.
motion is supported by the “Declaration of Gregory D.
Miller” [Doc. No. 232-1] and exhibits [Doc. No. 232-2
through 232-7]. Defendants seek to redact and seal limited
portions of the transcript of the status conference before
the Court, dated April 4, 2017. [Doc. No. 224].
aver that the transcript contains “sensitive
proprietary business information about proprietary,
confidential product formulations and other sensitive
information.” Mot. Ex. B. at page 1. According to
defendants, public disclosure of such information would
“reveal the confidential details of [defendants']
proprietary product formulations and make this information
available to competitors.” Id. Defendants
further assert there is no less restrictive alternative
because they are seeking redaction of only the information
that will reveal “confidential and business
well-established that there is “a common law public
right of access to judicial proceedings and records.”
In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted). When a party files a motion to seal it
must demonstrate that “good cause” exists for
protection of the material at issue. Securimetrics, Inc. v.
Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL 827889,
at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause exists when a party
makes “a particularized showing that disclosure will
cause a ‘clearly defined and serious injury to the
party seeking closure.'” Id. (citing Pansy
v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 1994)).
applicable requirements to seal documents are set forth in L.
Civ. R. 5.3(c), which requires that a motion to seal
describe: (a) the nature of the materials or 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. L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(3).
Court has reviewed the subject materials in detail to decide
this motion and finds that defendants have sufficiently
described the nature of the materials they seek to redact and
seal. The subject materials generally refer to
confidential information about defendants' ANDA product
formulation and development. The Court agrees there exists a
legitimate private interest in keeping the subject materials
under seal. The Court further finds that if the subject
materials are made public, defendants could be harmed by way
of competitive disadvantage in the pharmaceutical
marketplace. Likewise, the Court finds there is no less
restrictive alternative than to redact the limited portions
of the transcript defendants seek to redact. The Court
further finds that defendants' motion is properly
supported by a Declaration executed pursuant to L. Civ. R.
for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 22nd day
of November, 2017, that defendants' “Motion to
Seal” [Doc. No. 232] is GRANTED; and it is further
the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain under seal the
transcript of the status conference before the Court, dated
April 4, 2017. [Doc. No. 224]; and it is further
that to the extent not already done, defendants shall file a
redacted copy of Doc. No. 224 in accordance with this Order
by December 6, 2017.
 While the motion is unopposed,
plaintiffs propose a slightly narrower redaction only on page
8 of the transcript. However, for the reasons set forth
below, defendants' motion is granted in its entirety. See
Ex. B to Miller Declaration [Doc. No. 232-3].
 The specific page and line
designations of the transcript defendants seek to redact are
listed in the Miller Declaration and Index [Doc. Nos. 232-1,
232-3] filed ...