i 

John E. Flaherty 

MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

(973) 622-4444 

Errol B. Taylor 

Fredrick M. Zullow 

Anna Brook 

MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY

 & MCCLOY LLP

1 Chase Manhattan Plaza 

New York, New York 10005-1413 

(212) 530-5000 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Orexo AB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

OREXO AB, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

 

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and 

MYLAN INC., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

: 

Honorable Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. 

Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J. 

Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-03788 (FLW)(LHG) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL 

Motion Day: May 20, 2013 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 2856
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

LEGAL ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................2 

 LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THIS MOTION ..................................................2 

 REQUEST TO SEAL ...............................................................................................................4 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................5 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2857
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES

Faulman v. Sec. Mut. Fin., No. 04-5083, 

2006 WL 1541059 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006) ..................................................................................3 

Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman, 40 A.2d 799, 800 (N.J. Ch.1945) ............................................................2

In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) .......................................................................2,3 

Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 

998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993)....................................................................................................2,3 

Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988)......................................................................3 

Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., 

No. 05-3165, 2007 WL 496816 (D.N.J. Feb. 13, 2007) ............................................................3 

Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549 (3d Cir. 1993) .......................................................................3

Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) ................................................................2 

Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) .................................................3 

Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 

949 F.2d 653 (3d Cir. N.J. 1991) ...............................................................................................3 

Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich. 1, 5-6, McGrath 1615, 48 N.W. 201 (1891) ....................................2 

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 

529 F. Supp. 866 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ..............................................................................................3 

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Local Civil Rule 5.3 ........................................................................................................... in passim

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .............................................................................................................................3 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 2858
1 

INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Orexo AB (“Plaintiff”) submits this Memorandum in support of its Motion 

pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(c) to seal the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff Orexo 

AB’s Motion for the Issuance of a Letter of Request to the Central Authority of India for 

Testimony from Subash Chandra Mohanta and P. Murali Krishna, and Exhibits A, C, D, E, and 

F, which were electronically filed on April 23, 2013 [D.I. 123] (together, the “Subject Material”). 

This is a complex patent case requiring discovery of highly sensitive competitive 

materials, including business, trade-secret, or proprietary information. The parties to this case 

have produced confidential information in discovery, the public disclosure of which could affect 

legitimate business interests. To protect the confidentiality of this information, the parties agreed

to a Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order, entered in this litigation on March 26, 2012 

(D.E. 47, the “Order”). The Order allows the parties and third parties to designate information as 

“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential”, and provides that a party wishing to use materials so 

designated in a submission filed with the Court must move pursuant to Local Rule 5.3 for leave 

to file the submission under seal. (Order ¶¶ 2 and 12). 

The Subject Material contains information designated by Defendants Mylan 

Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s and Mylan Inc.’s (“Defendants”) as “Confidential” under the Order and 

therefore within the meaning of Local Rule 5.3(c). Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests 

that the Court seal the Subject Material. 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 2859
2 

LEGAL ARGUMENT 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THIS MOTION 

“[E]very court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been 

denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” In re Cendant 

Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 

589, 598 (1978) (citing Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich. 1, 5-6, McGrath 1615, 48 N.W. 201 

(1891) and Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman, 40 A.2d 799, 800 (N.J. Ch. 1945) (courts deny access to 

filed documents where they may be used as sources of business information that might harm a 

litigant’s competitive standing))). 

Local Civil Rule 5.3 contains a presumption, based on First Amendment considerations 

and the common law right of access to judicial records, that materials filed with the Court and 

judicial proceedings are open to the public. See Nixon, 435 U.S. 589; but see In re Cendant 

Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 198 n.13 (3d Cir. 2001) (noting that parameters of First Amendment right 

of access are as of yet undefined). However, “the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not 

absolute” and must be weighed against the litigants’ interests in secrecy. See Leucadia, Inc. v. 

Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993); Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; In re 

Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2001). 

 The presumption of access is subject to a balancing of factors that militate against access, 

e.g., the interest in secrecy. See Leucadia, 998 F.2d at 166. It is the burden of the party seeking 

to overcome the presumption of access to demonstrate the need to keep the materials under seal. 

Local Civil Rule 5.3(c) requires a showing of: 

(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue; 

(b) the legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought; 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 2860
3 

(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. 

 Where the party seeking to seal a pleading meets the “burden of showing that the 

material is the kind of information that the Court will protect” and that “disclosure will work a 

clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure,” then it is appropriate to seal the 

records. In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Miller v. Indiana 

Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1993)). A well-settled exception to the right of access is the 

“protection of a party’s interest in confidential commercial information . . . where there is a 

sufficient threat of irreparable harm.” See Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 

1070–71 (3d Cir. 1984). The presence of trade secrets or other confidential information weighs 

against public access and, accordingly, documents containing such information may be protected 

from disclosure. Leucadia, 998 F.2d at 165-66; see also Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1073 (“An 

interest in safeguarding a trade secret may overcome a presumption of openness.”) (citing Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 529 F. Supp. 866, 890 (E.D. Pa. 1981)). The 

Third Circuit has expressly recognized that “courts may deny access to judicial records where 

they are sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 

Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 662 (3d Cir. N.J. 1991) 

(quoting Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988)). Moreover, “Courts 

generally protect materials containing ‘trade secret[s] or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information’ to prevent harm to a litigant’s standing in the 

marketplace.” Mars, Inc. v. JCM Am. Corp., No. 05-3165, 2007 WL 496816, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 

13, 2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(7) (currently at Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G)) and citing 

Faulman v. Sec. Mut. Fin., No. 04-5083, 2006 WL 1541059, at *1 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006)). 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 2861
4 

II. REQUEST TO SEAL 

 Plaintiff submitted the Subject Material to the Court under seal in accordance with the 

provisions of Local Rule 5.3(c). The Subject Material contains information relating to 

Defendants’ ANDA product and/or proprietary business information that Defendants have 

designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the Order. By making such a designation, Defendants 

have manifested their belief that the public disclosure of this information could adversely affect 

their legitimate business interests. Without conceding that the information found in the Subject 

Material warrants such a designation, Plaintiff attempts to honor this designation by filing the 

Subject Material under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.3. 

 A clearly defined and serious injury will result to the Defendants if the Court does not 

seal the Subject Material. Without a sealing order, Defendants may suffer both competitive 

injury and unwarranted effects from disclosure of information designated as “Confidential.” 

Public access to such confidential information may disclose portions of Defendants’ business and 

commercial information and strategies, the confidentiality of which is incalculably valuable to 

Defendants. 

Furthermore, absent an order by the Court sealing the Subject Material, Plaintiff cannot 

file this confidential information in support of its Memorandum of Law for the Issuance of a 

Letter of Request. The omission of this confidential information from its Memorandum would 

significantly limit Plaintiff’s ability to adequately advocate for its position. 

 Finally, no less restrictive alternative to sealing the Subject Material is available to 

Plaintiff because, as described above, the information contained therein has been designated by 

Defendants as “Confidential” pursuant to the Order and Plaintiff’s request is tailored to seal only 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 2862
5 

the portions of the Memorandum that are confidential. Under these circumstances, the Subject 

Material should be sealed.

CONCLUSION 

 Plaintiff has met its burden under Local Civil Rule 5.3. For the foregoing reasons and in 

order to protect Defendants’ confidential information, Plaintiff respectfully request that the Court 

recognize that there is no other remedy available but to seal the Subject Material. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff requests that the Court grant its Motion to Seal the Subject Material. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: April 25, 2013 By: s/John E. Flaherty 

John E. Flaherty 

MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP 

Four Gateway Center 

100 Mulberry Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07102 

(973) 622-4444

Errol B. Taylor 

Fredrick M. Zullow 

Anna Brook 

MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY

 & MCCLOY LLP

1 Chase Manhattan Plaza 

New York, New York 10005-1413 

(212) 530-5000 

Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 124-1 Filed 04/25/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 2863