Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01780/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01780-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Acella Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1780-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Acella filed a Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of its Reply in

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 263) on September 26, 2011. Acella

requests an additional four pages for its Reply. Because of the length of Medicis’s Response

and the complexity of the issues involved, the Court finds good cause for the additional

pages. The Court therefore will grant the Motion. 

Acella has also filed a Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 265). Acella seeks

to seal Exhibit C to its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Exhibit C

contains excerpts from deposition testimony that Medicis has designated as Confidential

pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order. 

The Court starts with a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party that

wants to seal any part of a dispositive motion must overcome this strong presumption with

compelling reasons for sealing. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 267 Filed 09/27/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

1179 (9th Cir. 2006). To seal any part of non-dispositive motion, a party still must

demonstrate good cause. Id. at 1180.

The deposition testimony at issue deals with Medicis’s process for handling consumer

complaints. Acella asserts that the testimony should be sealed because the testimony

represents a source of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.

The Court respectfully disagrees. The Court finds that Acella has demonstrated neither

compelling reasons, nor good cause for sealing Exhibit C to the Reply. The Court therefore

denies the Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 265).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Acella’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in

Support of its Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 263). The Clerk

shall file the Reply currently lodged at Docket 264, except that the Clerk will not file Exhibit

C to the Proposed Reply because of the Court’s denial of the Motion to Seal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Acella’s Motion for Leave to File Under

Seal (Doc. 265). Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6(e), the Court will strike the

the Sealed Lodged Proposed Exhibit at Docket 266. Acella shall have five (5) days from the

date of this Order to resubmit Exhibit C to the Reply for filing in the public record.

DATED this 27th day of September, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 267 Filed 09/27/11 Page 2 of 2