Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2024

United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc.

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:15-cv-04179
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Bassan v. Omnicare: Judge Figueredo granted defendants’ request to seal exhibits responding to the government’s discovery motion and ordered access restrictions maintained.

Who this affects

The defendants’ exhibits filed at ECF No. 465 remain subject to viewing restrictions, and the motion at ECF No. 464 was terminated.

What happened

In United States ex rel. Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc., defendants asked the court to seal exhibits attached to their response to the government’s motion to compel.

Defendants said the exhibits contained commercially sensitive and proprietary information designated as confidential under the case’s protective order. They also argued that public access was less strongly presumed because the exhibits were submitted with a discovery motion.

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the request to seal. She directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the viewing restrictions on ECF No. 465 and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 464.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
United States of America ex rel. Uri Bassan v. Omnicare, Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-04179
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Apr. 26, 2024

Background

Defendants requested an order sealing exhibits attached to their letter responding to the government’s motion to compel. They relied on the case’s protective order, which covered commercially sensitive and proprietary information designated as confidential. Defendants also cited the reduced presumption of public access that applies to materials submitted in connection with a discovery motion.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the requested motion to seal. The order directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the viewing restrictions on ECF No. 465 and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 464.

Effect of the Order

The order restricted public viewing of the exhibits identified in ECF No. 465. The opinion does not describe any ruling on the underlying discovery dispute or on the merits of the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.