In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:13-cv-09244
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation, Judge Aaron granted sealing in part and denied it in part for filings containing proposed redactions.
The parties to the litigation and members of the public seeking access to the identified court filings were affected. The order required revisions to one filing and permitted sealing of other documents containing confidential communications between Takeda and its legal counsel.
What happened
In In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation, the court considered requests to seal documents connected to Plaintiffs’ August 30, 2022 letter motion and reply. The requests concerned filings identified as ECF Nos. 394, 397, 405, and 409.
The court found that proposed redactions in ECF No. 394 were too broad because they covered information Defendants had already filed publicly. It ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a renewed sealing motion and a revised, less-redacted version of that filing by September 30, 2022.
The court granted in part and denied in part the sealing requests. It approved sealing for the remaining documents because the redactions were narrowly tailored to protect confidential communications between Takeda and its legal counsel. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The detailed version
- In re ACTOS Antitrust Litigation · No. 1:13-cv-09244
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
The court considered requests to seal documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ August 30, 2022 letter motion and Plaintiffs’ reply supporting that motion. The requests related to ECF Nos. 394, 394-1 through 394-8, 405, and 405-1 through 405-6.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access. That right is not absolute, however, and the court must balance public access against competing interests, including confidentiality concerns.
Ruling
The court found that the proposed redactions to Plaintiffs’ letter motion at ECF No. 394 were overbroad because they concealed information that Defendants had already placed on the public docket. The court directed the parties to meet and confer and, by September 30, 2022, file a renewed motion to seal together with a revised version of ECF No. 394 that unredacted the public information.
The court found that the remaining redactions and sealing requests for ECF Nos. 394-1 through 394-8, 405, and 405-1 through 405-6 were narrowly tailored to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential communications between Takeda and its legal counsel. It therefore granted the sealing request for those documents. Overall, the requests to seal were granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.