Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00749/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00749-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John D’Agnese; Barbara D’Agnese, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0749-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s (“Defendant” or

“Novartis”) Motion to Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 78). The Court now rules on the

Motion. 

Defendant requests leave of the Court to file three expert reports under seal.

Defendant plans to attach these expert reports as exhibits to motions to exclude certain of

Plaintiff’s experts under Daubert. These documents were produced subsequent to the entry

of a Protective Order in the multi-district litigation before the case was remanded to this

Court. 

Defendant claims that it is necessary to keep these documents confidential to protect

its’ competitive position. Defendant further asserts that it has maintained a practice of

keeping certain types of documents confidential. Defendant asserts that these expert reports

“either are or quote, discuss, and reflect internal corporation documents.” (Doc. 78 at 3). 

The Motion to Seal is deficient for a number of reasons. First, the Motion makes no

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 82 Filed 08/16/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

attempt to set forth the proper standard for sealing documents. The Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals has recently held that, in certain circumstances, “a Daubert motion connected to a

pending summary judgment motion may be effectively ‘dispositive of a motion for summary

judgment,’” thus requiring the Court to apply the “compelling reasons” standard to any

motion to seal documents attached to the Daubert motion. In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co.

Annuity Sales Practices Litig. v. Allianz Life Ins. Co of N. Am., __F.3d__, 2012 WL 3024192,

at *3 (9th Cir. July 25, 2012) (internal quotation omitted); see Kamakana v. City and County

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of

documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that

‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.”) (internal citation omitted). 

Based on the information provided by Defendant, the Court cannot ascertain whether

it should apply the “good cause” standard or the “compelling reasons” standard to

Defendant’s Motion to Seal. This alone constitutes a reason for denial of the Motion to Seal.

However, the Court finds that, even if the lower good cause standard could be applied to

Defendant’s motion to seal, Defendant has failed to meet that standard.

Defendant has not made any attempt to explain to the court why these documents

should be sealed, aside from making the conclusory assertion that there is “good cause” to

seal confidential documents to protect its competitive position. Such conclusory assertions

are not sufficient to overcome the strong presumption of public access because they do not

provide the Court with a sufficient factual basis on which it can articulate a decision to seal

court records. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 1182-83. 

Further, even if Defendant had articulated good cause to seal some of the information

in the expert report, which it did not, Defendant cannot contend that every portion of the

expert reports need to be sealed. The policy of promoting access to public documents

dictates that only that information which there is good cause or a compelling reason to seal

should actually be sealed. Accordingly, to the extent that a party wishes to seal an entire

document, rather than redacting certain secret information from that document, the party

must provide either good cause or compelling reasons to seal all of the information in that

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 82 Filed 08/16/12 Page 2 of 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

1

 Further, the Parties should be aware that it is not the practice of this Court to “seal”

public hearings and trials or the exhibits introduced therein. See TriQuint Semiconductor,

Inc. v. Avago Technologies Limited, No. CV-09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 1432519, at *10

(D. Ariz. April 25, 2012). 

- 3 -

document. See id. at 1183. Otherwise, the party must only seek to redact that information

that there is good cause or compelling reasons to seal. Here, Defendant has not provided

good cause or compelling reasons to seal any portion of the expert reports and has certainly

not provided good cause or compelling reasons to seal those documents as a whole.

1

Based on the foregoing

IT IS ORDERED that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s (“Defendant” or

“Novartis”) Motion to Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 78) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of August, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 82 Filed 08/16/12 Page 3 of 3