In Re Allergan PLC Securities Litigation

Background

The court considered five motions to seal filed by Plaintiff and three motions to seal filed by Defendants. The materials concerned the parties’ summary-judgment motions and related motions about expert testimony. Defendants identified which materials they believed should be publicly filed, filed with public redactions, or filed entirely under seal. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’ positions. Plaintiff also did not oppose two of Defendants’ motions to seal and did not respond to another.

Two of Defendants’ motions concerned documents designated confidential during discovery by third-party witnesses Jennison Associates and Southeastern Asset Management, identified in the opinion as DeKalb’s investment advisors. Defendants also redacted portions of documents that relied on those third parties’ confidential materials.

Legal standard

The court stated that the public has a qualified First Amendment right and a common-law right to access judicial documents. A strong presumption of public access applies. A party seeking sealing must show that sealing is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to protect that interest.

Ruling

The court granted the requests concerning redacted and sealed materials, but only temporarily, while the summary-judgment motions were being decided. The court expressly did not decide whether the documents could remain sealed after those motions were resolved. After the summary-judgment decision, the parties would have ten days to identify the portions they believed should remain redacted or sealed and to submit a memorandum explaining, line by line, why continued confidentiality was justified despite the presumption of public access.

For materials associated with the third-party witnesses, the court ordered each witness to file, within ten days after the summary-judgment decision, a line-by-line memorandum explaining why its documents’ redactions should remain confidential. The court also ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to notify counsel for those witnesses and place proof of that notification on the electronic court record. If a third-party witness failed to respond as ordered, information concerning that witness would be immediately unsealed.

Because the parties agreed that certain items Plaintiff had filed under seal should instead be public, the court directed the Clerk to unseal the docket entries and exhibits listed in the order. The remaining materials filed with the summary-judgment and expert-witness motions would remain temporarily sealed pending the court’s decision on those motions. The Clerk was also directed to remove the specified motions to seal from the court’s list of open motions.