1 

[Doc. No. 274] 

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE 

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA : 

ex rel. MARC SILVER, et al., : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : 

 v. : Civil No. 11-1326 (NLH/JS) 

 : 

OMNICARE, INC., et al., : 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

______________________________: 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Consent Motion to Seal 

(“Motion”) [Doc. No. 274] filed by defendant PharMerica. The Court 

exercises its discretion to decide the motion without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L. Civ. R. 78.1. For the reasons 

to be discussed, defendant’s motion is GRANTED. 

The Court writes for the benefit of the parties, who are 

already familiar with the pertinent background facts. Therefore, 

only the facts necessary to deciding this dispute are recounted 

here. The instant motion represents defendant’s second attempt to 

seal page 74, line 22 of an October 27, 2015 Hearing Transcript 

(“Transcript”). See Mot. at 1 [Doc. No. 274]; Consent Motion to 

Seal at 1 (“First Motion”) [Doc. No. 242]. The Court denied 

defendant’s first motion because it failed to “support its motion 

with specific examples or articulated reasoning.” See Order at 4 

Case 1:11-cv-01326-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 11293
2 

[Doc. No. 270]. In denying defendant’s first motion, the Court 

gave defendant 14 days to file a renewed motion to seal. 

Subsequently, defendant timely filed the instant motion. Mot. 

[Doc. No. 274]. 

Litigants seeking to seal information associated with a 

judicial proceeding must demonstrate “good cause.” Securimetrics, 

Inc. v. Iridian Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 03-4394 (RBK), 2006 WL 

827889, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 30, 2006). Good cause requires “a 

particularized showing that disclosure will cause a ‘clearly 

defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id. 

(citing Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir. 

1994)). In addition, the movant must support its motion with 

“specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Supernus Pharm., 

Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., C.A. No. 13-4740 (RMB/JS), 2014 WL 6474039, 

at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 18, 2014) (collecting cases). 

Motions to seal are governed by Local Civil Rule 5.3 which 

requires the moving party to describe: (a) the nature of the 

materials or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or 

public interest which warrants the relief sought; (c) the clearly 

defined and serious injury that would result if the relief sought 

is not granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the 

relief sought is not available. L. Civ. R. 5.3. 

 In support of its renewed motion defendant argues that the 

material contained at page 74, line 22 of the transcript contains 

Case 1:11-cv-01326-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 11294
3 

highly sensitive, confidential business information. Id. at 3. The 

highly sensitive information identified by defendant consists of 

the gross margin percentage of transactions between a particular 

pharmacy and several nursing homes in the pharmacy’s geographic 

region. Id. Defendant asserts it values the secrecy of this 

information, and as a result declines to include such figures in 

any of its public financial statements. Id. 

Defendant also argues that disclosure of the information 

would pose a serious risk to its competitive interests. Id. 

Defendant maintains that the “long-term care pharmacy industry is 

a highly competitive business” in which its competitors “are 

aggressive in securing a nursing home’s business and in trying to 

gain the business of nursing homes under contract with other longterm care pharmacies.” Id. at 4. Accordingly, defendant argues, 

any disclosure of its gross margin percentages would subject 

defendant to a “substantial risk of harm.” Id. 

Defendant is also concerned about public disclosure of the 

information. Defendant acknowledges that there may be some public 

interest in the case considering the underlying allegations. Id. 

at 5. Nonetheless, defendant argues that the proposed redaction is 

so narrow that it will not “impede the public’s ability to 

understand the discussion or to evaluate the case.” Id. at 4-5. 

Similarly, defendant argues that its limited redaction is the least 

Case 1:11-cv-01326-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/09/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 11295
4 

restrictive means available to balance its interest in financial 

privacy against the public’s interest in the case. Id. 

Local Civil Rule 5.3 directs the court to evaluate defendants 

motion under the following factors: (a) the nature of the materials 

or proceedings at issue; (b) the legitimate private or public 

interest which warrants the relief sought; (c) the clearly defined 

and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not 

granted; and (d) why a less restrictive alternative to the relief 

sought is not available. In the Court’s view, defendant has 

satisfied the standards of Local Civil Rule 5.3, and shown “good 

cause” to redact the identified information. Defendant identified 

the subject of the material and specified where it appears in the 

transcript, showed that the balance between public and private 

interest weighs in its favor, supported its claim of economic harm 

with specific examples and articulated reasoning, and selected the 

least restrictive means to redact the information. 

 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS hereby ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2016, that 

defendant’s “Motion to Seal" [Doc. No. 274] is GRANTED. The Clerk 

of the Court shall seal page 74, line 22 of the October 27, 2015 

Hearing Transcript [Doc. No. 241]. 

/s/ Joel Schneider 

 JOEL SCHNEIDER 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01326-NLH-JS Document 335 Filed 06/09/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 11296