Opinion
3:08-cv-0116-LRH-RAM
08-25-2011
DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
Before the court are plaintiff Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Duramed") motion for leave to seal motion for status conference (Doc. #248); motion for leave to seal reply to motion for status conference (Doc. #253); motion for leave to seal motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. #262); and motion for leave to seal reply to motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. #283).
Refers to the court's docket number.
As an initial matter, the court is acutely cognizant of the presumption in favor of public access to papers filed in the district court. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, a party seeking to file materials under seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption by showing that the materials are covered by an operative protective order and are also deserving of confidentiality. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005). Specifically, a party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana, City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Here, in this patent infringement action, the court has entered a protective order governing documentation and testimony that is confidential to the parties' internal research and development. The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that documents at issue in the present motions contain information that is designated "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential" under the protective order. Therefore, the court finds that Duramed has satisfied its burden to show compelling reasons for filing its pleadings under seal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to seal motion for status conference (Doc. #248); motion for leave to seal reply to motion for status conference (Doc. #253); motion for leave to seal motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. #262); and motion for leave to seal reply to motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. #283) are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE