In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-05822
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation: Judge Illman denied Plaintiffs’ motion to seal exhibits and ordered a meet-and-confer before refiling.
Plaintiffs and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Lupin Ltd.; the order concerns public access to the privilege-log exhibits and requires the parties to discuss redactions.
What happened
In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation involved Plaintiffs’ request to seal exhibits containing privilege logs provided by Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Lupin Ltd. Plaintiffs said they did not believe the exhibits needed sealing but filed the request after Lupin asked them to do so temporarily.
The court explained that public access to court records is strongly presumed and that sealing requests must be narrowly limited to material that qualifies for protection. It denied the motion because Plaintiffs had not provided enough specific support for sealing the entire exhibits.
The court ordered Plaintiffs and Lupin to promptly discuss appropriate redactions so Plaintiffs could promptly file a new sealing motion with redacted exhibits. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman.
The detailed version
- In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation · No. 3:19-cv-05822
- William Alsup
- June 29, 2020
Background
Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal exhibits attached to a jointly filed discovery-letter brief. The exhibits consisted of privilege logs provided by Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Lupin Ltd., which the opinion collectively calls “Lupin.” Plaintiffs stated that they did not believe the exhibits needed to be sealed, but moved to seal the entirety of each exhibit after Lupin advised them to do so while Lupin considered possible redactions.
Legal standard
The court stated that federal courts in the Ninth Circuit begin with a strong presumption favoring public access to court records. It also explained that Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) requires a sealing motion to be narrowly tailored to material that may properly be sealed. Supporting declarations may not rely on boilerplate or vague assertions of possible harm; they must explain specifically why an entire document or particular portions contain sealable material under the applicable standard.
Ruling
The court held that Plaintiffs’ motion did not satisfy those requirements and denied the motion. It ordered Plaintiffs and Lupin to promptly meet and confer about the appropriate degree of redaction. The court directed Plaintiffs to refile the sealing motion with properly redacted exhibits in compliance with the cited authorities.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.