Sandoz Inc. v. Cediprof, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-09377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sandoz v. Cediprof, Judge Schofield denied provisional sealing and required a further letter explaining why closure was essential and narrowly tailored.
Sandoz Inc. must submit a further letter motion supporting its request to seal materials filed in its arbitration-confirmation case; Cediprof, Inc. may have an opportunity to address the need for sealing.
What happened
Sandoz Inc. asked the court to provisionally seal its memorandum supporting a petition to confirm an arbitration award, the award itself, and parts of a marketing and distribution agreement. Sandoz said the award was confidential under the parties’ protective order and that the agreement contained previously undisclosed financial information.
Sandoz acknowledged that court records are generally open to the public, but asked for temporary sealing so Cediprof, Inc. could explain why the materials should remain sealed. Sandoz said it took no position on whether sealing was ultimately appropriate and provided opposing counsel with unsealed copies.
Judge Lorna Schofield denied the application and ordered Sandoz to submit a letter motion by November 10, 2022, explaining why sealing was essential to protect higher values and narrowly tailored to serve that purpose.
The detailed version
- Sandoz Inc. v. Cediprof, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09377
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
Sandoz Inc. moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and the Southern District of New York’s electronic filing rules to provisionally seal three categories of material filed in support of its petition to confirm an arbitration award: (1) Sandoz’s memorandum of law; (2) Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Jessica Kaufman, which contained the final award from the arbitration; and (3) portions of Exhibit 2, which contained a 2002 marketing and distribution agreement, as amended.
Sandoz stated that the arbitration award was designated confidential under a stipulated protective order. It also stated that portions of the agreement contained previously undisclosed financial information subject to that protective order. The proposed redactions to the public version of the agreement were the same as redactions previously filed by Cediprof in an earlier related proceeding. Sandoz’s memorandum discussed, summarized, quoted, and cited the exhibits.
Sealing standard and requested relief
Sandoz recognized the common-law and First Amendment presumptions favoring public access to judicial records. It acknowledged that a confidentiality agreement alone does not justify sealing judicial documents. Under the standard cited in the motion, sealing requires specific findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Sandoz stated that it took no position at that time on whether any of the materials should actually be sealed. Instead, it requested provisional sealing for a period the court considered reasonable so Cediprof could make a showing supporting continued sealing. Sandoz also stated that it had provided opposing counsel with unsealed copies.
Ruling
The court denied the application for provisional sealing. The court ordered Sandoz to submit, by November 10, 2022, a letter motion in further support of its motion to seal, explaining why closure was essential to preserve higher values and how the request was narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The opinion does not state a final ruling on whether the documents should ultimately be sealed.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.