Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00749/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00749-1/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

1

 Because this Court’s order of August 16, 2012 did not “end[] the litigation on the

merits and leave[] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,” the challenged order

is not a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.

229, 233 (1945). Thus, Defendant cannot avail itself of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

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 for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Seal Certain

Documents (Doc. 86) and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Seal

Certain Documents (Doc. 93). The Court now rules on the Motions. 

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 42

F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendant does not cite to any standard for the Court to

reconsider its Order. However, when Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) are

inapplicable,1

 the Court applies the following standard. The Court will grant reconsideration

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 95 Filed 08/27/12 Page 1 of 4
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

59(e) or 60(b), which only apply to reconsideration of “final judgments and appealable

interlocutory orders.” Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 466-67 (9th Cir.

1989). 

- 2 -

if the party seeking reconsideration makes a showing that:

(1) There are material differences in fact or law from that presented to

the Court and, at the time of the Court’s decision, the party moving

for reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal

differences through reasonable diligence;

(2) There are new material facts that happened after the Court’s

decision;

(3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or enacted

after the Court’s decision; or

(4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to

consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the

Court’s decision.

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003)

(emphasis added).

Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its decision (see Doc. 82) not to seal three

expert reports that Defendant seeks to attach to Daubert motions to exclude certain of

Plaintiff’s experts. In the Court’s August 16, 2012 Order, the Court found that Defendant

failed to cite the proper standard for sealing documents attached to a Daubert motion, failed

to provide good cause or compelling reasons to seal the expert reports, and failed to limit its

request to seal information to only that information that was indeed secret. (See Doc. 82).

Defendant now states that the Court should reconsider its Order because Defendant

was “under the (mistaken) impression that this matter had been previously litigated and that

the MDL’s Protective Order and subsequent rulings regarding it would continue to be

controlling in this litigation.” (Doc. 86 at 2). This argument is unavailing and fails to meet

the standard for reconsideration as set forth above. 

First. this argument ignores clear Ninth Circuit law and this Court’s local rules that

set forth both (1) that a protective order entered in a case does not control the sealing of

documents and (2) that, each time a party seeks to seal documents, it must meet the

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 95 Filed 08/27/12 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

appropriate standard for sealing. Specifically, LRCiv 5.6 provides that: 

The Court generally will not enter an order that gives advance

authorization to file documents under seal that are designated for such

treatment by parties under a protective order or confidentiality

agreement. Any motion or stipulation to file a document under seal

must set forth a clear statement of the facts and legal authority

justifying the filing of the document under seal . . .

LRCiv. 5.6. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been clear that, even if a

document has previously been allowed to be filed under seal or protective order, the

compelling reasons standard must be satisfied each time the party seeks to seal a document.

See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments,

were previously filed under seal or protective order.’”) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual

Auto Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Defendant has pointed to no law or previous proceedings in this case that would

justify reconsideration based on Defendant’s “mistaken impression” that it did not need to

meet the proper standard for sealing documents in the first instance. 

Further, even if Defendant had met the proper standard for reconsideration, which it

did not, the Court would again deny the Motion to Seal on the merits. In denying the Motion

to Seal in the first instance, the Court explicitly instructed that “when seeking to seal an

entire document, rather than redacting certain secret information from the document, the

party [seeking to seal the information] must provide either good cause or compelling reasons

to seal all of the information in that document.” (Doc. 82 at 2-3 (emphasis in original) (citing

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183)). Nonetheless, Defendant still contends that the entirety of the

expert reports should be sealed, but fails to provide any reason to seal all of the information

in the expert reports. 

For instance, Defendant contends that “[t]he entire Parisian Report should be sealed

because it contains innumerable quotations to internal company communications . . . and is

interwoven with quotations or allusions to internal company documents—often without

citation.” This conclusory assertion again fails to identify specifically why the “entire”

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 95 Filed 08/27/12 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Parisian Report needs to be sealed. The Motion to Seal and the Motions for Reconsideration

were not filed under seal and they contain information that Defendant now seeks to have

sealed, such as the name of the expert whose report should be sealed. Accordingly, it is clear

that Defendant has not attempted to identify and redact only information that it claims is

confidential. For this reason alone, the Motion to Seal fails. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1184 (finding that a review of the “proposed redactions supports the decision to unseal the

records [because], [f]or example, many names or references for which the United States

sought redaction were either already publicly available or were available in other documents

being produced . . .”). 

Further, the first seven pages of Dr. Parisian’s report simply describe her background

and make no reference to Defendant. Defendant has failed to provide any reasons why Dr.

Parisian’s background constitutes a confidential secret that should be sealed. Although the

Court only provides this one example, the relevant expert reports are replete with information

for which Defendant has failed to provide any reason to seal. Thus, even if the Court granted

the Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant has still failed to meet the appropriate standard

for sealing the expert reports. 

Based on the foregoing,

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

“Novartis”) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Seal Certain

Documents (Doc. 86) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion

to Strike Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to

Seal Certain Documents (Doc. 93) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall strike Plaintiffs’

Response in Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 92). 

DATED this 27th day of August, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00749-JAT Document 95 Filed 08/27/12 Page 4 of 4