2 Pharma Connect, LLC v. Mission Pharmacal Company

Background

(RC) 2 Pharma Connect, LLC moved to file documents under seal in connection with its request for an order requiring Mission Pharmacal Company to show why a preliminary injunction should not issue. The sealing motion concerned Exhibits A–E and Exhibits 1–6 to the declaration of Benjamin E. Weed.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of immediate public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. It applied a three-step test: determine whether the materials are judicial documents, determine the weight of the public-access presumption, and balance that presumption against competing interests such as privacy or competitive sensitivity.

The court held that the documents were judicial documents because they were expressly relied on in connection with the preliminary-injunction proceeding. Because that proceeding could determine the parties’ substantive rights, the presumption of public access was at its strongest. The documents therefore could remain sealed only for the most compelling reasons.

Ruling

The court denied the request to seal Exhibits A–B and D–E. The plaintiff argued that those exhibits might contain information confidential to Mission Pharmacal, but Mission Pharmacal did not claim the information was confidential and did not oppose public filing.

As to Exhibit C, the plaintiff said that it contained confidential information about ongoing testing processes and referred to a possible confidentiality agreement. The court stated that the existence of a confidentiality agreement, by itself, does not overcome the presumption of public access. The court also noted that Exhibit C included plainly nonconfidential information, including meeting dates, times, locations, subjects, and attendees. The court took the sealing request for Exhibit C under consideration and gave the plaintiff permission to submit a reply with a redacted version that specifically explained the basis for any redactions.

The court denied the request to seal Exhibits 1–6 to the Weed declaration. Those exhibits contained letters and emails setting out the parties’ positions and requesting information. The documents were not labeled confidential. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims about Mission Pharmacal’s alleged failures under the parties’ Proposal Agreement, the alleged threat of irreparable harm, and the plaintiff’s consultations with third-party consultants were not private. The plaintiff also had not shown that the third party’s identity or the types of requested documents were confidential.

The court noted that another sealing motion remained pending at Docket Number 26. The parties could submit letter briefs by May 2, 2022, addressing how the ruling should apply to that motion. The plaintiff could also submit its reply concerning Exhibit C by that date. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order on April 28, 2022.