United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:15-cv-04179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In United States ex rel. Bassan v. Omnicare, Judge Figueredo granted sealing of specified filings containing proprietary information.
The parties and members of the public seeking access to the specified motion and exhibits were affected by the continued viewing restrictions.
What happened
United States ex rel. Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc. involved Defendants’ request to keep sealed exhibits and an unredacted motion connected to the Government’s motion to compel. The requested materials included commercially sensitive and proprietary information.
The court had previously allowed the materials to remain temporarily restricted. Defendants asked that the restrictions continue for Exhibits C through M and the unredacted motion, with limited designated portions of one deposition transcript included.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the application. She directed the Clerk to maintain viewing restrictions on ECF Nos. 449 and 449-1 through 449-13 and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 456.
The detailed version
- United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-04179
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 16, 2024
Background
Defendants asked the court to continue restricting public access to Exhibits C through M and the unredacted version of the Government’s motion to compel. The motion and exhibits were identified as ECF No. 449 and ECF Nos. 449-1 through 449-13. The request relied on the materials’ commercially sensitive and proprietary information and their designation as confidential under the protective order.
The request also covered only the portions of an employee’s deposition transcript that Defendants had designated confidential and that the Government cited. The court had previously granted temporary restrictions on the materials.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the application. The Clerk was directed to maintain the viewing restrictions on ECF No. 449 and ECF Nos. 449-1 through 449-13. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 456.
Effect
The order continued to restrict public viewing of the specified motion and exhibits. The opinion does not state that the court decided any underlying claim or motion-to-compel dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.