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.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 6, 2018

JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
v.
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, et al., Defendants.

          James E. Cecchi, Melissa E. Flax, Michael Cross, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO Attorneys for Defendants Lupin Limited, Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Lupin Inc.

          ORDER TO SEAL

          JOSEPH A. DICKSON, U.S.M.J.

         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 Joint Motion to Redact and Seal information pursuant to Local Civil Rules 5.3(c) and 5.3(g); 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 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 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 Pablicker 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 die presumption of access. Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 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. Certain portions of the Transcript of the March 2, 2018 Status Conference before the Honorable Joseph A. Dickson, U.S.M.J. (hereinafter, the "Confidential Materials") contain information that has been designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL" by Lupin and subject to the Discovery Confidentiality Order entered on December 19, 2016 (D.I. 335).

         6. The Confidential Materials contain proprietary and confidential research, development, commercial, and technical information that has been designated as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER" by Lupin.

         7. Public disclosure of this information would provide the public insight into the business and operations of Lupin.

         8. Lupin's redactions are the least restrictive alternative because the redactions are narrowly tailored to include only the Confidential Materials which contain Lupin's Highly Confidential information.

         9. Lupin has a legitimate interest, which warrants the sealing of this information, and a clearly defined injury if it is not sealed.

         B. Legitimate Private or Public Interests Which ...


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.