Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the AEO designation is appropriate. In re Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), Losartan, & Irbesartan Prod. Liab. Litig., 512 F.Supp.3d 546, 550 (D.N.J. 2021) [hereinafter “In re Valsartan”] (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir.1986)). To do so, it must show that the PMTA Documents “contain[] highly sensitive business or personal information, [and] the disclosure of which is highly likely to cause significant harm to an individual or to the business or competitive position of the designating party.”
The Magistrate Judge's decision to instead mitigate the privacy concerns posed by Nash through the issuance of a discovery confidentiality order is consistent with the standaid piactice of courts in this District. See In re Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), Losartan, & Irbesartan Prod. Liab. Litig., 512 F.Supp.3d 546, 550 (D.N.J. 2021).