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
- 2
In Allele Biotechnology v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Judge Halpern granted Regeneron’s request to file its answer under seal and terminated the pending motion.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., whose answer and attachments were permitted to be filed under seal; Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the court were permitted access, while public access to those documents was restricted.
What happened
In Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Regeneron asked to file its answer to Allele’s Third Amended Complaint under seal because it contained information designated highly confidential. The parties agreed that the redacted information was highly confidential.
The court granted the request. It ordered the Clerk to seal the answer and attachments, allowing access only to the parties and the court, while keeping the summary docket available. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at Doc. 120.
Judge Philip M. Halpern issued the order on December 12, 2022. The order addressed only the filing under seal and did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals v. Pharmaceuticals · No. 7:20-cv-08255
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 13, 2022
Background
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked for permission to file under seal its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Third Amended Complaint. Regeneron stated that the answer contained information it had designated as “Highly Confidential.” The parties agreed that the information redacted in the answer was highly confidential and should be filed under seal.
The request concerned Doc. 121 and its attachments. The letter cited the presumption that court documents should generally be publicly accessible and the court’s authority to restrict access when countervailing interests, including protecting confidential business information, justify doing so.
Ruling
The court granted Regeneron’s application and granted the defendant leave to file the answer under seal. The Clerk of Court was directed to seal Doc. 121 and its attachments, permitting access only by the parties and the court, while retaining the summary docket for the record. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 120.
Effect of the Order
This was an order about access to a court filing. It did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.