Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 25, 2022

In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:18-cv-04361
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureAntitrust
In one sentence

In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation: Judge Hellerstein granted requests to seal documents and redactions related to expert and class-certification proceedings.

Who this affects

The parties and non-parties who requested sealing or redactions, as well as public access to the specified court filings, were affected by the order.

What happened

In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation involved multiple requests by plaintiffs, defendants, and non-parties to seal documents or redact portions of documents connected to expert-witness challenges and class certification. The requests covered filings by Par Pharmaceutical, Novartis, several plaintiffs, and several non-parties.

No party or non-party objected to any of the listed requests. The court explained that sealing judicial documents requires showing that secrecy is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored, and that sensitive business information can outweigh the public’s access to court records.

The court concluded that the requested sealing and redactions were justified and granted the requests to seal. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein also directed the Clerk to terminate the listed electronic docket entries.

The detailed version

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

Case
In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:18-cv-04361
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
May 25, 2022

Background

The court addressed multiple pending motions to seal and redact documents. Plaintiffs sought sealing and redactions relating to motions challenging expert testimony. Defendants made similar requests relating to those motions. In connection with class certification, plaintiffs, defendants, and non-parties also sought to seal documents or redact portions of documents.

The listed requests included filings by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Walgreen Co. and H-E-B, L.P.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG; Cardinal Health, Inc.; the End-Payor Plaintiffs; Express Scripts, Inc.; the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs; McKesson Corporation; and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The opinion states that no party or non-party objected to any of these requests.

Legal Standard

The court stated that a party seeking to seal judicial documents must overcome the First Amendment right of public access by showing that sealing is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The court also recognized that the need to protect sensitive business information and practices can outweigh the presumption of public access. Examples of such information include proprietary material concerning marketing strategies, product development, costs, and budgeting.

Ruling

After reviewing the applicable request letters, supporting declarations, and exhibits for each motion, the court concluded that maintaining the requested documents and redactions under seal was warranted. The court therefore granted the requests to seal. It directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 468, 472, 474, 485, 514, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 525, 529, 533, 536, and 542.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.