Subramanian v. Lupin Inc.

Background

Veerappan Subramanian, individually and as Seller Representative for VGS Pharma, LLC, Mendham Holdings, LLC, Govindammal Subramanian, and Anu Radha Subramanian, was the plaintiff. In connection with Sellers’ motion for partial summary judgment, Sellers and Lupin Inc. filed multiple requests to seal or redact materials submitted to the court.

The court had previously denied Sellers’ first sealing request without prejudice. Sellers then narrowed their request and supplied additional explanation and legal authority. The materials included Rule 56.1 statements, legal briefs, declarations, exhibits, and the Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA).

Rulings on Sellers’ Requests

The court granted Sellers’ request to file redacted versions of their Rule 56.1 statement, the Kierkut Declaration, and Exhibits 9–12, 15, 22–23, 26, 36, 50, 67–75, and 81–82. The court also allowed Exhibits 15, 22, and 26 to be filed entirely under seal.

The court denied Sellers’ request to file the PSA, identified as Exhibit 2 to the Kierkut Declaration, entirely under seal. Although the PSA might contain confidential business information, the court found that it was at the heart of the litigation. The court said the parties could submit a version with proposed redactions, together with an explanation of why the redactions were appropriate and narrowly tailored.

The court denied Sellers’ request to redact portions of their memorandum of law. It explained that materials submitted for consideration on a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents with a particularly strong presumption of public access. The court found that Sellers had not shown the most compelling reasons needed to overcome that presumption. It also noted that some information proposed for redaction was already publicly available in an unredacted reply brief.

The court denied Sellers’ request to file portions of their objections to Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation under seal. The court applied the same reasoning concerning public access and noted that at least some proposedly redacted information, including the stated purchase price, had already appeared publicly in Lupin’s opposition brief.

Rulings on Lupin’s Requests

The court granted Lupin’s request to seal its Rule 56.1 opposition statement and Exhibits 2–4, 9, 24–25, 32–36, 47, and 50–52 to the Kletter Declaration.

The court denied Lupin’s request to redact its opposition brief and denied its request to seal Exhibit 13, which was the PSA. The court allowed the parties to submit a version of the PSA with proposed, narrowly tailored redactions by October 2, 2020, along with an explanation addressing the governing public-access standard.

Additional Request and Final Directions

The court granted Sellers’ request concerning Exhibit E to the Supplemental Kierkut Declaration and portions of Sellers’ objections and responses to Lupin’s Rule 56.1 opposition statement. The court also stated that Sellers’ corrected objections and responses were granted for the same reasons.

In summary, the parties’ sealing requests connected with Sellers’ partial-summary-judgment motion were granted except for requests to seal the PSA entirely and requests to redact portions of Sellers’ memorandum, Lupin’s opposition brief, and Sellers’ objections to the Report and Recommendation. The court directed the parties to file proposed narrowly tailored redactions or unredacted versions by October 2, 2020, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motions at Dkts. 289, 308, 323, and 356. Judge Ronnie Abrams’s order addressed access to filings and did not decide the underlying partial-summary-judgment motion.