Ferring B.V. v. Allergan Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:12-cv-02650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ferring B.V. v. Allergan Inc., Judge Castel provisionally sealed specified exhibits to a sanctions opposition.
Jones Day and Christopher J. Harnett, the non-parties who submitted the documents; Ferring B.V., Ferring International Center S.A., and Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.; and Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Reprise Biopharmaceutics, LLC, whose correspondence was included.
What happened
Ferring B.V. v. Allergan Inc. concerns exhibits containing correspondence that the parties had marked confidential under a protective order.
Jones Day and Christopher J. Harnett, who were not parties to the underlying case, asked the court to seal Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and J attached to their opposition to Ferring’s sanctions motion.
Judge Castel ordered the documents provisionally sealed, subject to a further order.
The detailed version
- Ferring B.V. v. Allergan Inc. · No. 1:12-cv-02650
- P. Castel
- Mar. 30, 2021
Background
Jones Day and Christopher J. Harnett, identified as non-parties, filed papers opposing Ferring’s motion for sanctions. Their submission included correspondence between Ferring and Serenity Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Reprise Biopharmaceutics, LLC from the underlying action. The parties had designated that correspondence as confidential under a stipulated protective order.
Sealing Request
Jones Day and Harnett asked the court to seal Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, H, I, and J to the declaration supporting their opposition. Their request relied on the protective order’s provisions concerning confidential information. The filing also described the Second Circuit’s three-part framework for public access to court documents: whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of any presumption of public access, and the balance between access and competing interests such as privacy.
Ruling
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered that the identified documents be provisionally sealed, subject to a further order. The text provided does not state a final ruling on whether the documents will remain sealed permanently.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.