In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 EUREKA DIVISION 7 8 In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Case No. 19-cv-05822-WHA (RMI)

9 ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 10 MOTION TO SEAL

11 *This document relates to all actions* Re: Dkt. No. 288

13 14 Plaintiffs have moved to seal a number of exhibits to a jointly-filed discovery letter brief 15 which consist of privilege logs provided by Defendants Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Lupin 16 Ltd. (collectively, “Lupin”). See Admin. Mtn. to Seal (dkt. 288) at 2-3. In their own motion to 17 seal, Plaintiffs submit that they do not believe these exhibits need to be sealed at all (see id. at 2), 18 but have nevertheless moved to seal the entirety of each of these privilege log exhibits because 19 they were advised to do so by Lupin until such time that Lupin has “more time” to offer its 20 suggestions as to proposed redactions. Id. at 2. 21 Courts in this circuit begin the analysis of such issues with the proposition that there is a 22 strong presumption in favor of public access when deciding whether to seal records. Kamakana v. 23 City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 24 Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Liaw v. United Airlines, Inc., No. C 19- 25 00396 WHA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204492, at *28 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019). Furthermore, 26 Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) requires that administrative motions to file under seal be narrowly 27 tailored such that they only seek the sealing of sealable material. See Bronson v. Samsung Elecs. 1 2019). Supporting declarations, therefore, may not rely on boilerplate language or vague assertions 2 || of potential harm, instead, they must explain with particularity why an entire document, or some 3 portion thereof, constitutes sealable material under the applicable legal standard. Bronson, No. C 4 18-02300 WHA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226306 at *2-3. Because Plaintiffs’ motion fails to satisfy 5 these standards, the motion is DENIED. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Lupin are herewith ORDERED to promptly meet and confer 7 regarding the suitable degree of redactions which should attend these exhibits, such that Plaintiffs 8 can refile the motion to seal forthwith, along with the appropriately redacted exhibits, in 9 compliance with the authorities cited above. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 29, 2020 a 12

13 ROBERT M. ILLMAN 14 United States Magistrate Judge

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28