Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05822/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05822-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

GLUMETZA ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION.

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

No. C 19-05822 WHA

No. C 19-05831 WHA

No. C 19-06138 WHA

No. C 19-06156 WHA

No. C 19-06839 WHA

No. C 19-07843 WHA

(CONSOLIDATED)

ORDER GRANTING 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE & 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED 

INFORMATION ORDERS

The stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 113-1) and electronically stored information 

order (Dkt. No. 113-2) submitted by the parties are hereby Approved, subject to the following 

conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against sealing orders (as 

set out below):

1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any information designated 

“confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Designations of material as “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include 

only material for which there is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an 

order un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

Case 3:19-cv-05822-WHA Document 115 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the Court must be 

lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Please 

limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly tailored portions of materials for which 

good cause to seal exists. Please include all other portions of your materials in the public file 

and clearly indicate therein where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires 

an individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer allowed by 

Civil Local Rule 79-5.

3. In addition to the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and other governing law, 

only for the most compelling reason will the Court grant any sealing request covering 

information that relates to potential hazards to the health, safety, or well-being of the public. 

Therefore, when anyone seeks to seal or redact anything filed with the Court, the request must 

specifically draw attention to any proposed sealing or redaction of information that implicates 

such issues. 

4. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and unredacted —

so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief or declaration. Although 

chambers copies should clearly designate which portions are confidential, chambers copies 

with confidential materials will be handled like all other chambers copies of materials without 

special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not shredded.

5. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit 

held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal documents 

used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of 

a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the 

courts will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed 

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a 

“compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good cause.” This will be true 

regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are warned that most summary judgment 

motions and supporting material should be completely open to public view. Only social 

security numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of 

Case 3:19-cv-05822-WHA Document 115 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom 

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, 

which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also part of the trial and must 

likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please comply fully. Noncompliant 

submissions are liable to be stricken in their entirety. 

6. Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial will not be 

treated in any special manner absent a further order. 

7. This order does not preclude any party from moving to undesignate information 

or documents that have been designated as confidential. The party seeking to designate 

material as confidential has the burden of establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

8. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the proposed and 

stipulated protective order for only ninety days after final termination of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-05822-WHA Document 115 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 3