Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-2894.
February 4, 2008
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG RIVAS, LLC, Allyn Z. Lite, Michael E. Patunas, Mayra V. Tarantino, Newark, New Jersey, SUTHERLAND ASBILL BRENNAN LLP, John L. North, Jeffrey J. Toney, N.E.B. Minnear, Russell A. Korn, Kristin E. Goran, Atlanta, Georgia, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL MATERIALS
This matter having been brought before the Court through Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Materials pursuant to Local Rules 5.3(c) and 7.1 filed January 7, 2008, and this Court having fully considered the Declaration of Michael E. Patunas in Support of the Motion to Seal, any submissions in further support thereof, and any opposition thereto, as well as the record before it, the Court makes the following findings:
THE COURT FINDS that the following materials contain either documents, or information garnered from the documents, which have been designated as "Confidential" by the defendants in this case:
• Plaintiffs' Opposition Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) to Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,710,184;
• Declaration of Gerald J. Meyer, Ph.D in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) to Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,710,184; and ,
• Affidavit of Norman Minnear Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) in Opposition to Defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,710,184
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that this is a patent action involving a process for preparing a pharmaceutical product and involves information that defendants Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, "DRL") have designated as confidential, particularly information regarding DRL's research and development, and DRL's formulation and manufacturing processes.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that DRL's Motion to Seal filed on December 14, 2007, which concerned the same category of information, stated that DRL had a legitimate private interest in this category of information, because DRL has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the documents and information DRL designated as confidential, and that a legitimate public interest exists in that requiring disclosure of information designated as confidential as a condition of litigating their rights may burden the litigants' access to the Court.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that DRL's Motion to Seal dated December 14, 2007 detailed the clearly defined and serious injury that would result were the Order to Seal not to be granted is that information described by DRL as valuable business information and trade secrets created at substantial expense will be lost and competitors would unjustly gain access to them and be able to use the information to the detriment of DRL.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that no less restrictive alternative is available to prevent the clearly defined and serious injury stated by DRL because both Teva and DRL rely on the material designated as confidential in support of DRL's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,710,184 and in support of Plaintiffs' Opposition thereto.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS compliance with the requirements set forth in Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2) and in case law related thereto.
THEREFORE, for good cause shown, and in order to preserve the confidentiality of the aforementioned documents:
IT IS ORDERED that the listed documents shall be maintained under seal by the Clerk of Court.