Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 25, 2020

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Depomed, Inc.

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:19-cv-00255
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureInsurance
In one sentence

In Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Depomed, Judge Gilliam granted motions to seal confidential insurance, litigation, and business records.

Who this affects

Navigators Specialty Insurance Company and Depomed, Inc.; the ruling also limits public access to the specified court filings.

What happened

In Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Depomed, Inc., the parties asked the court to seal documents connected to a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and motions for summary judgment.

The court found that the documents included confidential communications with insurers, subpoenas related to ongoing opioid litigation, insurance-related investigations and negotiations, and sales and pricing information. Public disclosure could prejudice Depomed’s defense and harm the parties by giving competitors useful information.

The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard and found the requests narrowly tailored. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal, and the sealed documents will remain sealed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Navigators Specialty Insurance Company v. Depomed, Inc. · No. 4:19-cv-00255
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Nov. 25, 2020

Background

The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to keep certain documents and portions of filings confidential. The materials were submitted in connection with Depomed’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and the parties’ motions for summary judgment.

Legal standard

Because the materials related to dispositive motions—motions that could resolve claims or the case—the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must identify specific reasons that outweigh the public’s strong interest in accessing court records. The request must also be narrowly limited to information that qualifies for protection.

Court’s analysis

The court considered materials containing confidential communications to insurers and subpoenas connected to ongoing or threatened opioid litigation involving Depomed’s sales and marketing of opioid products. The court found that disclosure could prejudice Depomed’s defense in that litigation, including by making it more difficult for Depomed to defend both the underlying litigation and related insurance-coverage issues.

The parties also sought to seal exhibits and related portions of briefs and declarations containing confidential business information. That information included investigations and evaluations of insurance-related risks, negotiations concerning an insurance policy, and sales and pricing information about Depomed’s products. The court found that competitors could use the information to the parties’ disadvantage and concluded that the requested sealing was sufficiently narrow.

Disposition

The court granted the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. Under the applicable local rule, the documents covered by the granted motions will remain under seal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.