Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals v. Pharmaceuticals
Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-08255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 18
In Allele Biotechnology v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Judge Halpern approved a protective order limiting use and disclosure of confidential discovery materials.
Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the parties’ counsel, representatives, experts, consultants, vendors, third parties providing discovery, and other people subject to the protective order.
What happened
Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a lawsuit in which the parties asked the court to protect private and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The parties agreed to the proposed order, and the court found good cause to issue it.
The order creates “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” categories, limits who may see those materials, and requires certain recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements. The materials may be used only for this lawsuit and related appeals, not for business, competitive purposes, or other lawsuits. The order also addresses sealed filings, accidentally disclosed privileged information, returning or destroying materials after the case, and enforcement through contempt sanctions.
Judge Halpern ordered the parties and other covered individuals to follow the stipulated protective order. The order governs discovery confidentiality and does not decide the underlying claims or the admissibility of evidence at trial.
The detailed version
- Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals v. Pharmaceuticals · No. 7:20-cv-08255
- Philip Halpern
- Aug. 3, 2022
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The parties agreed to the order’s terms, and the court found good cause for issuing a tailored confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case.
Confidentiality classifications and access
The order permits a producing party to designate material as “Confidential” when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or product-development plans, marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
A producing party may designate material as “Highly Confidential” when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material contains its most sensitive information, including trade secrets or sensitive research, development, financial, commercial, technical, or other product-related information. The order generally requires protected portions to be clearly marked, with a redacted copy prepared for public use when appropriate.
Access is limited to specified recipients, including outside counsel, certain designated party representatives, vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and addressees, experts and consultants, deposition stenographers, and the court and its personnel. Highly Confidential material is subject to additional restrictions. In particular, designated party representatives who receive it may not be involved in competitive decision-making or in prosecuting patents concerning mNeonGreen, fluorescent agents, or anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the case. That restriction continues for one year after the action ends.
Before certain people receive protected material, counsel must provide them with the order and obtain a signed nondisclosure agreement or declaration agreeing to be bound by it. The parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional limits, and unresolved disputes may be presented to the court.
Use, filings, and accidentally disclosed privileged material
Recipients may use protected discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, protections, or arguments about whether evidence is admissible at trial.
A party filing protected material must publicly file a redacted version and submit the unredacted version under seal. The order states that the court may later unseal material if the required specific findings are not made, and that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed even if it was previously designated confidential.
The order provides that an inadvertent disclosure of information claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product protection does not by itself waive that protection. After a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the receiving party generally must return or destroy the material within five business days. The producing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to compel production. The producing party retains the burden of establishing that the material is privileged or otherwise protected.
Disposition and enforcement
The order requires recipients, within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, to return or—if the producing party permits—destroy covered discovery material and certify that they have not retained copies or reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. This order governs discovery and confidentiality; it does not resolve the merits of Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s claims against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.