Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03740/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03740-74/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, on behalf

of itself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ASTRA USA, INC., ASTRA ZENECA

PHARMACEUTICALS LP, EVENTS

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BAYER

CORPORATION, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB

COMPANY, PFIZER, INC.,

SCHERING-PLOUGH CORPORATION TAP

PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, INC.,

ZENECCA, INC., ZLB BEHRING LLC,

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION,

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

d/b/a GLAXO SMITHKLINE, WYETH, INC.,

WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-03740 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

SEAL THEIR RESPONSE

TO DEFENDANT AVENTIS’S

OBJECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFFS’ DESIGNATION

OF AMBIEN FOR

INTERROGATORY

RESPONSES

Defendant Aventis recently objected to the designation of Ambien by plaintiffs as the

product about which defendant Aventis would have to answer two court-ordered interrogatories

(Dkt. No. 685). Plaintiffs were granted leave to respond, and, in so doing, they concurrently

filed a motion to file their response, and two exhibits to their supporting declaration, under seal

(Dkt. No. 687).

Plaintiffs filed their motion without narrowly tailoring their request to seal portions of

their response in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Furthermore, according to the

declaration submitted in support of plaintiffs’ motion, the documents at issue include testimony

Case 3:05-cv-03740-WHA Document 693 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and documents that defendants designated as confidential or highly confidential. Defendants

have not filed a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, or withdrawn

the designation of confidentiality, in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Plaintiffs’ motion is therefore DENIED. Plaintiffs must make their response and

supporting documents part of the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03740-WHA Document 693 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2