John J. Regan

Anna E. LumelskyJennifer Unter

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

617-526-6000

Christopher R. Noyes

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING

HALE AND DORR LLP

7 World Trade Center

250 Greenwich Street

New York, NY 10007

Attorneysfor Plaintiff

Braintree Laboratories, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

)

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC., Civil Action No 3:1l-cv-01341

(PGS) (LHG) Plaintiff, )

) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO V. SEAL
(

)

g 

g

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(5):

1. The Court finds that there is an Amended Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality

Order, entered by the Court on December 7, 2011 (‘Confidentiality Order”), providing for theconfidential treatment of certain sensitive business documents produced in the litigation that are

designated “Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by the

producing party.

2. The Court further finds that the documents plaintiffBraintree seeks to have sealed

were designated “Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by

defendant Novel Laboratories, Inc. (“Novel”) or by plaintiff Braintree and pursuant to theConfidentiality Order.

3. The Court agrees that the information sought to be sealed appears to contain

sensitive business information or confidential patient information of plaintiff Braintree and/or

defendant Novel that is not known by the general public.

4. The Court further finds that revealing to the public and to Braintree’s and Novel’s

competitors the confidential business information sought to be sealed would injure Braintree’s

and/or Novel’s business interests.

5. Accordingly, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal the documents at issue

under the considerations set forth in Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir.

1994) and Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(2).

ActiveUS 101600209v.1
), 

y 

g

Infringement (“Infringement Motion”), pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.3(c):

Portions of Braintree’s Counterclaims Motion, filed on October 3, 2012,

referencing Confidential Exhibits 2 and 10 and marked “Confidential” and

“Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by Novel pursuant to the Amended

Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order (“Confidentiality Order”)

entered by this Court on December 7, 2011 as Docket Entry # 65, This

document contains confidential Novel information related to Novel’s

Abbreviated New Drug Application.

• Portions of Braintree’s Infringement Motion, filed on October 3, 2012,

referencing Confidential Exhibits 2, 4-7, 10, 12-13, and 15-17 and marked

“Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Outside Counsels’ EyesOnly” by Braintree or Novel pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. This

document contains confidential Novel information,

• Exhibit 2 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy of

selected portions of Novel’s ANDA for Sodium Sulfate, Potassium Sulfate

and N agnesium Sulfate Oral Solution, ANDA # 202511, within the Bates

production number range of NOV0000001NOV0000755, and marked

“Confidential” by Novel pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. This

document contains confidential Novel information,

ActiveUS 101600209v, I
y 

e

. 

his document contains confidential Novel

information.

• Exhibit 5 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy of

excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Scott Talbot, taken April

23, 2012, and marked “Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by Novel pursuant

to the Confidentiality Order. This document contains confidential Novel

information.

• Exhibit 6 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy of

excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of James Garegnani, takenMarch 30, 2012, and marked bOutside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by Novel

pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. This document contains

confidential Novel information.

• Exhibit 7 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy of

Defendant’s Objections and Responses to Braintree Laboratories, Inc.’s

Second Amended First Set of Requests for Admission to Defendant Novel

Laboratories, Inc.. served May 4, 2012, and marked “Attorneys’ Eyes

Only” by Novel pursuant to the Confidentiality Order. This document

contains confidential Novel information.

• Exhibit 10 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy

of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Veerappan

ActiveUS 101600209v.I
y 

, 

py

of excerpts from the transcript ofthe deposition of Dr. David S. Goldfarb,

taken September 14, 2012, and marked “Confidential” by Novel pursuant

to the Confidentiality Order. This document contains confidential Novel

information.

• Exhibit 13 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy

of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. John Johanson,

taken September 6,2012, and marked bConfidential by Novel pursuant to

the Confidentiality Order. This document contains confidential Novel

information.

• Exhibit 15 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy

of the Rebuttal Expert Report of David S. Goldfarb, M.D., dated July 20,

2012, and marked “Confidential” by Novel pursuant to the Confidentiality

Order. This document contains confidential Novel information. This

document also contains confidential Braintree information related to

clinical trials and research. This information is not available to the public

or competitors.

• Exhibit 16 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy

of patient records, in the clinical study No. BLI-800-303, bearing the

Bates production numbers BRT5UP00084284-BRTSUP000843O8, and

ActiveUS 101600209v.1
p

• Exhibit 17 to the Lumelsky Declaration, which is a true and correct copy

of patient records, in the clinical study No. BL1-800-303, bearing theBates production numbers BRTSUP000S4493-BRTSUP00084517, and

marked “Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by Braintree pursuant to the

Confidentiality Order. This document contains confidential patient

information. This information is not available to the public or

competitors.

• Plaintiff’s Rule 56.1 Statement in Support of Partial Summary Judgment

of Infringement, referencing Confidential Exhibits 2, 4-7, 10, 12-13, and

15-17, marked “Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Outside

Counsels’ Eyes Only” by Braintree or Novel pursuant to the

Confidentiality Order. This document contains confidential Novel

information.

• Portions of the Expert Declaration of Dr. Peura in Support of Partial

Summary Judgment of Infringement, referencing Confidential Exhibits 2,

4-7, 10, and 12-13, marked Confidential,” b.f7gy5’ Eyes Only,” or

‘Outside Counsels’ Eyes Only” by Novel pursuant to the Confidentiality

Order. This document contains confidential Novel information.

ActiveLJS 101600209v.I
Acti\eUS I 01 600209v, 1