United States District Court, D. New Jersey
INDIVIOR INC., INDIVIOR UK LIMITED, and AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiffs,
ALVOGEN PINE BROOK LLC, Defendant
Charles M. Lizza William C. Baton David L. Moses Saul Ewing
Arnstein & Lehr LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs Indivior
Inc., Indivior UK Limited, and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
B. Calmann Katherine A. Escanlar SAIBER LLC Attorneys for
Defendant Alvogen Pine Brook, Inc. n/k/a Alvogen Pine Brook
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
CATHY L. WALDOR, U.S.M.J.
MATTER having come before the Court pursuant to the
consolidated motion of Plaintiffs Indivior Inc., Indivior UK
Limited, and Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), and Defendant Alvogen Pine Brook LLC
("Defendant") (Plaintiffs and Defendant, together,
"the parties"), pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)
and 5.3(g), to seal their Confidential and/or Highly
Confidential Information from certain portions of the
transcripts from the parties' December 19, 2018 (D.I.
81), December 21, 2018 (D.I. 82), January 22, 2019 (D.I. 97)
telephone conferences with Hon. Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J., and
the parties' January 24, 2019 in-person
hearing with the Hon. Kevin McNulty, U.S.D.J. (D.I. 100)
[hereinafter, the "Confidential Materials"]; and
the Court having considered the written submissions of the
parties; and the Court having determined mat this action
involves allegations regarding the disclosure of confidential
and proprietary information; and for other and good cause
having been shown; the Court makes the following findings and
information that the parties seek to seal has been designated
by the parties as "Confidential," "Highly
Confidential," and/or "Highly Confidential-Outside
Counsels' Eyes Only" Information under the
Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order entered by the
Court on June 19, 2018 (the "DCO") (D.I. 46).
designating the material as "Confidential,"
"Highly Confidential," or "Highly
Confidential-Outside Counsels' Eyes Only" under the
DCO, the parties have represented that the subject
information is a trade secret or confidential research,
development or commercial information within the meaning of
is a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement action. As
such, a significant portion of the materials exchanged in
discovery, and subsequently filed with the Court in
connection with pretrial proceedings, contain proprietary and
confidential research, development and business information
of the parties. The material identified herein contains
information designated by the parties as
"Confidential," "Highly Confidential," or
"Highly Confidential-Outside Counsels' Eyes
Only," and includes their trade secrets and/or
confidential research, development or commercial information.
designating this information "Confidential,"
"Highly Confidential," or "Highly
Confidential-Outside Counsels' Eyes Only," it is
apparent that the parties have indicated that the public
disclosure of this information would be detrimental to their
business. Due to the nature of the materials herein, there is
no less restrictive alternative to sealing portions of the
parties' request is narrowly tailored to only the
confidential information contained in the above materials. In
this regard, the parties have already filed redacted,
non-confidential version of the subject materials.
consideration of the papers submitted in support of the
motion, and the information that the parties have designated
as "Confidential," "Highly Confidential,"
and/or "Highly Confidential-Outside Counsels' Eyes
Only," the Court concludes that the parties have met
their burden of proving under Local Civil Rule 5.3 and
applicable case law that the information described above
should be sealed. See Pansy v. Borough of
Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 787 (3d Cir. 1994).
Specifically, the Court concludes that (a) the materials
contain confidential information concerning the parties'
business; (b) the parties' have a legitimate interest in
maintaining the confidentiality of the information to protect
its disclosure to potential competitors who could use the
information contained therein to develop and market competing
products; (c) public disclosure of the confidential
information would result in clearly defined and serious
injury, including the use of the confidential information by
competitors to the parties' financial detriment; and (d)
no less restrictive alternative to sealing the subject
information is available.
foregoing conclusions are supported by relevant case law
holding that the right of public access to the full court
transcript is not absolute, and may be overcome by a showing
such as made here, in the discretion of the trial court.
See Nixon v. Warner Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 603 (1978). The Court, upon such a proper showing, may
in its discretion prevent confidential information from being
"transmuted into materials presumptively subject to
public access." Gambale v. Deutsche BankAG, 377
F.3d 133, 143 n.8 (2dCir. 2004).
that based upon the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, that the parties' ...