Filed: Aug. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL JOSEPH A. DICKSON , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER having come before the Court on motion by counsel for Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, "DRL") and Actavis Elizabeth LLC ("Actavis") (collectively with DRL, "Defendants"), for the entry of an Order redacting confidential information contained in Volume 11 of the transcript of proceedings in the above captioned matter dated February 13, 2015 pursuant to L
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL JOSEPH A. DICKSON , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER having come before the Court on motion by counsel for Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, "DRL") and Actavis Elizabeth LLC ("Actavis") (collectively with DRL, "Defendants"), for the entry of an Order redacting confidential information contained in Volume 11 of the transcript of proceedings in the above captioned matter dated February 13, 2015 pursuant to L...
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
JOSEPH A. DICKSON, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on motion by counsel for Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively, "DRL") and Actavis Elizabeth LLC ("Actavis") (collectively with DRL, "Defendants"), for the entry of an Order redacting confidential information contained in Volume 11 of the transcript of proceedings in the above captioned matter dated February 13, 2015 pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c); the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(5):
1. The Court finds that there is a Discovery Confidentiality Order, Dkt. 64, entered by the Court on April 16, 2013 ("the Confidentiality Order"), providing for the confidential treatment of certain sensitive business documents produced in the litigation that are designated "CONFIDENTIAL" by the producing party. Defendants have complied with the terms of that Order by requesting to redact certain passages of the trial transcript at issue pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3(c).
2. The Court agrees that the information sought to be sealed appears to contain or refer to sensitive business information of the parties that is not known by the general public.
3. The Court further finds that revealing the confidential business information to the public and competitors to the parties to this action would injure the parties' business interests. The Court also finds that Defendants seek to redact only the confidential information, thereby making it the least restrictive alternative.
4. Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists to redact the trial transcripts at issue under the considerations set forth in Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburgh, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) and L. Civ. R. 5.3(c)(2).
IT IS, on this 24th day of August 2015;
ORDERED that Defendants' motion to seal the following documents (ECF No. 392) is GRANTED pursuant to L. Civ. R. 5.3,
• Trial Transcript Volume 11 [Dkt. 392]: Portions of the Transcript Relating to the formulation of DRL's ANDA product and bioequivalence testing data.
The subject tracts are specifically identified below:
Defendants' Redactions to Closing Argument Transcript Vol. 11
Transcript Pages and Lines Identifiers
Page 11.21, Line 8 From the word "be" to the word "but"
Page 11.22, Lines 7-8 From the word "levels" to the word "where"
Page 11.27, Lines 3-4 From the word "contains" to the word "as"
Page 11.31, Line 1 From beginning of line 1 to the word "but"
Page 11.31, Line 4 From the word "that" to the word "in"
Page 11.31, Lines 7-8 From the word "identifies" to the word "as"
Page 11.31, Line 12 From the word "identified to the end of line 12
Page 11.31, Line 14 From the word "of" to the word "characterizes"
Page 11.31, Line 15 From the beginning of line 15 to the word "as"
Page 11.55, Line 13 From the word "concentration" to the end of line 13
Page 11.55, Lines 20-21 From the word "are" to the word "at"
Transcript Pages and Lines Identifiers
Page 11.68, Line 1 From the word "and" to the word "the"
Page 11.70, Line 3 From the beginning of line 3 to the word "we"
Page 11.76, Line 15 From the word "conceded" to the word "is"
Page 11.80, Line 1 From the word "is" to the end of line 1
Page 11.80, Line 3 From the word "that" to the word "is"
Page 11.80, Line 7 From the word "that" to the word "is"
Page 11.80, Line 10 From the beginning of line 10 to the word "and"
Page 11.80, Line 11 From the word "the" to the end of line 11
Page 11.80, Line 14 From the word "that" to the end of line 14
Page 11.80, Line 15 From the word "form" to the end of line 15
Page 11.80, Lines 16-17 From the word "a" to the word "which"
Page 11.80, Line 23 From the word "said" to the word "is"
Page 11.81, Line 2 From the word "than" to the word "are"
Page 11.81, Line 13 From the word "that" to the word "is"
Page 11.92, Line 5 From the word "was" to the end of line 5
Page 11.92, Line 10 From the word "that" to the word "level"
And it is further
5. ORDERED that a redacted version of the subject transcript, in which only the confidential information described above has been redacted, shall be made available on the public docket. Defendants shall prepare a redacted transcript consistent with the terms of this Order, and shall provide the Court Reporter with an electronic version of the subject redacted transcript within 10 days of this Order, and it is further
6. ORDERED that the unredacted version of the subject transcript [Dkt. 392] shall remain sealed.
SO ORDERED.
