In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7

8 In re No. C 19-05822 WHA 9 GLUMETZA ANTITRUST No. C 19-05831 WHA LITIGATION. No. C 19-06138 WHA 10 No. C 19-06156 WHA No. C 19-06839 WHA 11 This Document Relates to: No. C 19-07843 WHA

12 ALL ACTIONS. (Consolidated)

13 OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 15 16 A previous order adopted the parties’ stipulation to file omnibus motions that collected 17 the numerous individual sealing motions the parties filed in conjunction with their summary 18 judgment briefing and the corresponding Daubert motions (Dkt. No. 405). This order resolves 19 those omnibus motions and all other pending motions to seal. 20 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD. 21 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 22 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 24 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 25 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 26 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the 27 merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The compelling 1 limine and Daubert motions can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id. at 1098–99. 2 In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only 3 of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in 4 part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79- 5 5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate 6 certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions 7 thereof, are sealable.” Id. “Supporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate 8 language or nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any 9 document or portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. 10 Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. C 18-02300 WHA, 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 11 28, 2019) (Judge William Alsup) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5). 12 This order understands the parties’ omnibus motions, Dkt. Nos. 511, 512, and 513, to 13 cover the following filings: Dkt. Nos. 425, 440, 463, 469, 470, 472, 477, 483, 486, 491, 493, 14 and 502. These filings, with one exception, address the parties’ summary judgment briefing 15 and the corresponding Daubert motions. The summary judgment order did not address the 16 parties’ Daubert motions, which a later order decided closer to the scheduled trial date. The 17 movants acknowledge the compelling reasons standard applies to these filings. 18 2. THE DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL. 19 Upon review of the direct purchaser class’s omnibus motion to seal and accompanying 20 declaration, Dkt. No. 511-1, this order finds the class has made the requisite showing to seal 21 certain portions of the submitted documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. 22 This order rules as follows: 23 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning No. 24 425-2 Exh. A to Class GRANTED This document, not associated with 25 Counsel’s Submission of as to either the summary judgment a Unified List of Direct highlighted briefing or Daubert motions, 26 Glumetza Purchasers portions. contains confidential and competitively sensitive pricing data, 27 the public disclosure of which would cause class members competitive 1 harm (see Vanek Decl. ¶¶ 5–9). 2 3 4 502-2 Exh. 5 to Reply in GRANTED Contains raw, confidential pricing 5 Further Support of as to data that is proprietary to non-party Motion for Partial highlighted IQVIA, the public disclosure of 6 Summary Judgment on portions. which would cause IQVIA Market Power competitive harm (see Vanek Decl. 7 ¶¶ 10–13). 8 3. HUMANA’S OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL. 9 Upon review of Humana’s omnibus motion to seal and accompanying declaration, Dkt. 10 No. 512, this order finds Humana has made the requisite showing to seal certain portions of the 11 submitted documents. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as 12 follows: 13 Dkt. No. Document to be Result Reasoning 14 Sealed 15 440-22; Expert Report of Dr. GRANTED Contains specific and confidential 445-1 Rena Conti as to information concerning rebates 16 highlighted Humana received for Glumetza. portions. Public disclosure of this information 17 could cause Humana competitive harm in future negotiations 18 regarding rebates with drug 19 manufacturers (see Stein Decl. ¶¶ 3- 4). 20 21 440-23; Rebuttal Report of GRANTED Contains specific and confidential 445-2 Dr. Rena Conti as to information concerning rebates 22 highlighted Humana received for Glumetza. portions. Public disclosure of this information 23 could cause Humana competitive harm in future negotiations 24 regarding rebates with drug 25 manufacturers (see Stein Decl. ¶¶ 3- 4). 26 27 4. DEFENDANTS’ AND NON-PARTIES SUN AND TEVA’S OMNIBUS 1 MOTION TO SEAL. 2 Upon review of the omnibus motion to seal and accompanying declarations filed jointly 3 by defendants, non-party Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and non-party Teva 4 Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Dkt. No. 513, this order finds the movants have made the requisite 5 showing to seal certain documents (and portions thereof) filed in conjunction with the parties’ 6 summary judgment briefing and the corresponding Daubert motions. The proposed redactions 7 are narrowly tailored. This order notes that the direct purchaser plaintiffs oppose some of the 8 proposed redactions, arguing that several of the requests are not tailored to the relevant 9 standard, and that the justifications for other requests remain too opaque to justify sealing 10 (Opp. 1–2, Dkt. No. 526). Defendants, Sun, and Teva generally respond: (1) that the 11 contested sealing requests protect the interest of third-parties; (2) that the sealing requests 12 apply to only a few, narrow categories of information and are not boilerplate justifications; and 13 (3) that the direct purchaser plaintiffs arguments are vague, do not specify any particular 14 documents, and do no oppose the motion generally (Reply Br., Dkt. No. 529). This order rules 15 as follows: 16 Dkt. No. Document to be Result Reasoning Sealed (and 17 Requesting Party) 18 440-11; 8/21/2020 Tucker GRANTED The material found in ¶ 118 n.6 445-9; Report (Bausch, Sun, as to ¶ 118 contains confidential, internal 19 488-5 Teva) n.6. communications of non-party Sun Otherwise that address Sun’s manufacturing 20 DENIED. capabilities, the public disclosure of 21 which could harm Sun competitively (Klein Decl. ¶ 59). The rest of the 22 proposed redactions contain material related to the core issues in this 23 action and have a heavy presumption of public visibility. These issues, in 24 fact, were discussed in the order 25 denying summary judgment (see Dkt. No. 537 at 26). The movants’ 26 justifications do not adequately explain how or why competitive 27 harm would arise if this particular 440-12; 8/21/20 Strombom GRANTED The material found in ¶ 37 n.21 and ¶ 1 474-2; Report (Sun, Teva) as to ¶ 37 71 n.64 contains confidential, internal 2 475-12 n.21; ¶ 71 communications of non-parties Sun n.64. and Teva that address their 3 Otherwise manufacturing capabilities, the public DENIED. disclosure of which could harm Sun 4 and Teva competitively (see Klein Decl. ¶ 15; Savage ¶ 12). For the 5 other material, Sun and Teva’s 6 justifications do not explain how or why the generalized, nonspecific 7 information would now cause them competitive harm. The movants thus 8 fail to justify sealing those portions of the document. 9 440-13; 8/21/20 Philipson GRANTED Contains specific terms of Lupin’s 10 472-2 Report (Lupin) as to Master Distribution Services highlighted Agreement, which reveals 11 portions. confidential and sensitive information regarding how Lupin operates its 12 business relationships and particular pricing information, the public 13 disclosure of which would harm 14 Lupin competitively (see Gensburger Decl. ¶ 5). 15 440-14 11/24/20 Errata to GRANTED See entry for Dkt. No. 440-13. Philipson Report as to 16 (Lupin) highlighted 17 portions. 440-16; 8/21/2020 Jena GRANTED Contains Bausch and its customers’ 18 463-5; Report (Bausch, Sun, as to confidential, sensitive business 473-2; Teva) highlighted information, including pricing 19 492-2 portions. arrangements such as rebate figures (or information that can be used to 20 calculate rebate figures), the public 21 disclosure of which would cause Bausch and non-parties like Sun and 22 Teva competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 7). 23 24 25 26 27 440-18; 10/21/20 Strombom GRANTED GRANTED as to highlighted 1 447-3; Report (Bausch, Sun, in part and portions of: ¶ 29 after “before and 2 466-57; Teva) DENIED in after the approval”; ¶ 29 nn.18–21; ¶ 475-14; part. 30 n.22 (ll. 10–15); ¶ 43; ¶ 69 n.93; 3 485-3 Exhs. 4a–4b. These portions contain confidential and sensitive business 4 information, including information from non-parties, the public 5 disclosure of which would cause the 6 movants competitive harm (see Rush Decl. ¶ 6; Klein Decl. ¶ 15; Savage 7 Decl. ¶ 12). For the other material, the movants’ justifications do not 8 explain how or why the generalized, nonspecific information would now 9 cause them competitive harm. The 10 movants thus fail to justify sealing those portions of the document. 11 440-19; 7/24/20 McGuire GRANTED Contains confidential, sensitive 445-8; Report (Bausch, as to business information, including 12 464-36; Lupin, Sun, Teva) highlighted pricing forecasts and contract terms, 488-10; portions. which would cause defendants and 13 493-46 non-parties competitive harm if 14 publicly disclosed (see Rush Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8; Gensburger Decl. ¶ 5; Klein 15 Decl. ¶ 11; Savage ¶ 11). 440-20; 7/24/20 Lentz Report GRANTED Contains confidential and proprietary 16 445-5; (Sun) as to details about the specifications and 17 466-59; highlighted formulation of non-party Sun’s 478-3; portions. products, public disclosure of which 18 487-14; would cause Sun competitive harm 488-12; (see Klein Decl. ¶ 9). 19 489-3; 493-52 20 440-21; 7/24/20 Leffler GRANTED Contains confidential details 21 445-3; Report (Bausch, as to regarding non-party Sun’s 447-8; Sun) highlighted negotiations with Assertio over 22 463-8; portion. patent licensing, the public disclosure 474-4; of which would cause Sun 23 487-2; competitive harm (see Klein Decl. ¶ 493-54 7; Rush Decl. ¶ 6). 24 440-22; 9/16/20 Conti Report GRANTED Contains Bausch and its customers’ 25 447-1; (Bausch) as to confidential, sensitive business 485-2 highlighted information, including pricing 26 portions. arrangements such as rebate figures (or information that can be used to 27 calculate rebate figures), the public Bausch competitive harm (Rush 1 Decl. ¶ 7). 2 440-23; 11/11/20 Conti GRANTED See entry for Dkt. No. 440-22. 447-2 Rebuttal Report as to 3 (Bausch) highlighted portions. 4 445-4; 9/11/2020 Leffler DENIED. Bausch first seeks to seal portions of 486-2; Rebuttal Report the document describing the 5 487-3; (Bausch) Depomed-Santarus 6 493-55 commercialization agreement on the ground that public disclosure of the 7 terms would cause it competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). But the terms 8 Bausch seeks to seal here are closely related to the central issues in this 9 litigation. Bausch’s generic 10 explanation of harm does not justify sealing in this instance due to the 11 very strong presumption of public visibility as to these facts. Bausch 12 also seeks to seal pricing information due to possible competitive harm 13 (Rush Decl. ¶ 7). But here, the 14 information is closely intertwined with the Valeant price hike, which is 15 another core issue in our case with a strong presumption of public 16 visibility. Bausch’s justification is 17 generic and does not, without more, outweigh the public policy favoring 18 disclosure. 445-6; 9/11/2020 Lentz DENIED as The portions of the Lentz report this 19 489-4; Reply (Sun) to ¶ 17, ll. 4– order seals contain proprietary and 493-53 5. confidential information about the 20 GRANTED specifications and formulation of 21 as to ¶ 17 non-party Sun’s products, the public n.9, ¶ 34 disclosure of which would cause it 22 n.22. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 10). The portions of the Lentz report that 23 this order does not seal contains information that does not relate to 24 Sun’s products, so Sun has not 25 justified sealing of that material. 445-7 6/24/20 McGuire DENIED as Paragraph 117 concerns a core aspect 26 Report (Bausch, to ¶ 117. of this action, and Lupin has merely Lupin, Sun, Teva) GRANTED provided the boilerplate explanation 27 as to other that the paragraph contains portions. relating to . . . internal revenue 1 forecasting” (Gensburger Decl. ¶ 4). 2 In addition, the forecast at issue is from 2012, and Lupin has not 3 adequately explained how disclosure of this stale information could cause 4 it competitive harm. The other material this order does seal contains 5 confidential information related to 6 specific details of contracts with non- parties Watson and Sun, disclosure of 7 which would cause them competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 12; Savage Decl. 8 ¶ 11). 445-39; 8/21/2020 Byrn DENIED as For paragraph 16, Sun’s stated 9 465-13; Report (Sun) to ¶ 16. justifications do not explain how or 10 466-53; GRANTED why the generalized, nonspecific 485-10; as to other information regarding Sun’s 11 487-19 highlighted production processes would now portions. cause Sun competitive harm (Klein 12 Decl. ¶ 14). Sun hence fails to justify sealing the material. However, the 13 other highlighted material this order 14 seals does contain specific confidential information related to 15 Sun’s processes, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 16 competitive harm. 17 445-40; 7/24/20 Leitzinger GRANTED Contains confidential information 447-9; Report (Bausch) as to relating to Bausch’s pricing 18 474-6; highlighted arrangements with specific 485-19 portions. customers, including competitively 19 sensitive rebate figures that factor into net pricing paid, the public 20 disclosure of which would cause 21 Bausch competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 7). 22 463-6 7/24/20 Starr Report DENIED as Paragraph 35 contains information (Bausch, Sun) to ¶ 35. regarding core issues in this action 23 GRANTED that carry a heavy presumption of as to other public visibility. Those issues, in 24 highlighted fact, were discussed in the order 25 portions. denying summary judgment (see Dkt. No. 537 at 7). In addition, Sun’s 26 boilerplate justification that the material concerns confidential 27 settlement terms does not adequately material would now cause Sun harm 1 (see Klein Decl. ¶ 61). The other 2 highlighted portions of the document contain nonpublic confidential 3 information regarding contract terms and rebate information (including 4 material from Sun), the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 5 and Bausch competitive harm (see 6 ibid.; Rush Decl. ¶ 7). 477-6; 9/11/20 McGuire DENIED. Sun states public disclosure of 7 493-47 Rebuttal Report paragraph 33 would reveal (Bausch, Sun) information about Sun’s 8 manufacturing capabilities (Klein Decl. ¶ 66). But Sun’s boilerplate 9 justification does not explain how or 10 why the generalized, nonspecific information in this paragraph would 11 cause it competitive harm. Next, Bausch seeks to seal portions of the 12 document describing the Depomed- Santarus commercialization 13 agreement on the ground that public 14 disclosure of the confidential terms would cause Bausch competitive 15 harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). But the terms Bausch seeks to seal here are closely 16 related to the central issues in this 17 action. Bausch’s generic explanation of harm does not justify sealing in 18 this instance due to the strong presumption of public visibility for 19 this material. 466-60; 7/23/20 Korsmeyer GRANTED Contains detailed confidential 20 493-45 Report (Sun) as to information related to non-party 21 highlighted Sun’s formulation and manufacturing portions. of its products, the public disclosure 22 of which would cause Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 22). 23 469-11; 9/11/20 Jaskot DENIED as The portions of the Jaskot report this 487-16; Rebuttal Report to ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, order seals contains confidential 24 493-51 (Sun) 18, 21. details regarding the specifications, 25 GRANTED manufacture, and formulation of non- as to other party Sun’s products, the public 26 highlighted disclosure of which would cause Sun portions. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 20). 27 For paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 18, and 21, not explain how or why the 1 generalized, nonspecific information 2 would cause Sun competitive harm. 475-10 5/27/20 Strombom GRANTED Contains confidential information 3 Decalration (Sun, as to regarding details of non-parties Sun Teva) highlighted and Teva’s manufacturing processes 4 portions. and internal decision making, the public disclosure of which would 5 cause Sun and Teva competitive 6 harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 17; Savage Decl. ¶ 12). 7 474-14; 7/24/20 Jaskot GRANTED Paragraph 78 contains confidential 493-50 Report (Sun) as to ¶ 78. information regarding details of non- 8 DENIED as party Sun’s manufacturing to other capabilities and processes, the public 9 highlighted disclosure of which would cause Sun 10 portions. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 68). The other highlighted portions 11 contain no specifics regarding Sun’s production processes, and Sun does 12 not explain how or why disclosure of this generalized information would 13 cause it harm. Sun’s further 14 justification that the material addresses its regulatory affairs is 15 boilerplate, and, without more of an explanation, does not justify sealing 16 the material. 17 493-42 4/29/20 Leitzinger GRANTED Figure 1 contains Bausch’s Decl. (Bausch, as to ¶ 53 confidential pricing information for 18 Lupin) Fig. 1. specific customers, including details DENIED as on rebates, the public disclosure of 19 to ¶ 38. which would cause Bausch competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 7). 20 Next, Lupin seeks to seal material 21 related to its revenue forecasting for generic Glumetza but it provides only 22 a boilerplate justification to seal this information at the heart of this 23 litigation. This material carries a heavy presumption of public 24 visibility. In fact, these issues were 25 considered in the order denying summary judgment (Dkt. No. 537). 26 Lupin has not justified sealing here. 493-43 6/24/20 Leitzinger GRANTED Contains confidential, non-public 27 Rebuttal Declaration as to rebate information for particular portions. disclosure of which would cause 1 Bausch and other non-parties 2 competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 7). Due, in part, to the particularly 3 narrow tailoring of the material Bausch has justified sealing here. 4 493-49 7/24/20 Williams DENIED. Sun says that the highlighted material Report (Sun) contains nonpublic information 5 regarding its regulatory affairs (Klein 6 Decl. ¶ 67). But Sun’s boilerplate justification does not explain how or 7 why public disclosure of these nonspecific, generalized statements 8 would now cause Sun competitive harm. Without more, Sun has not 9 justified sealing this material. 10 493-5 Tucker deposition DENIED. Non-party Sun says the highlighted Transcript (Sun) material concerns confidential 11 information regarding its manufacturing capabilities and that 12 public disclosure would cause it competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 59). 13 But Sun’s boilerplate justification 14 does not explain how or why public disclosure of these nonspecific, 15 generalized statements would result in competitive harm to Sun. This 16 information also goes to the heart of 17 this action and was discussed in the order denying summary judgment 18 (Dkt. No. 537), so there is a strong presumption of public visibility. 19 Without more, Sun has not justified sealing this material. 20 440-3 Motion to Exclude DENIED. Lupin seeks to seal information 21 Philipson Opinions related to the Philipson report, but (Lupin) provides only the boilerplate 22 justification that the material concerns how Lupin operates its 23 relationships with customers and drafts its agreements (Gensburger 24 Decl. ¶ 5). This particular material 25 goes to a core issue in this action, so there is a strong presumption of 26 public visibility. Without more, Lupin has not justified sealing this 27 material. 440-5 Plaintiffs’ Motion to DENIED. Non-party Sun seeks to seal 1 Exclude Tucker information related to “the 2 Opinions (Sun) formulation of Sun’s products” (Klein Decl. ¶ 60). But the 3 highlighted material does not contain any details regarding the formulation 4 of Sun’s products, and Sun has not adequately explained how or why 5 public disclosure of these 6 nonspecific, generalized statements would cause it competitive harm. 7 440-15 Master Distribution GRANTED. Contains confidential material Services Agreement including specific, non-standard 8 between Lupin and terms and associated fees that arose Amerisource (Lupin, from extended negotiations, the 9 Amerisource) public disclosure of which could 10 cause Lupin and non-party Amerisource competitive harm 11 (Burkett Decl.; Gensburger Decl. ¶ 5). 12 440-24 Tucker Deposition DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 493-5. Transcript (Sun) 13 442 Defendants’ Motion GRANTED Contains confidential material 14 to Exclude Lentz as to regarding non-parties Sun and Teva’s Opinions (Bausch, highlighted negotiations and deliberations with 15 Sun, Teva) portions. Bausch over patent licensing, the public disclosure of which could 16 cause them competitive harm (Klein 17 Decl. ¶ 6; Savage Decl. ¶ 11; Rush Decl. ¶ 6). 18 443 Defendants’ Motion GRANTED The material this order seals contains to Exclude Leffler as to p. 16 l. specific, confidential information 19 Opinions (Sun) 4 and n.11 l. regarding non-party Sun’s 5. DENIED manufacturing and product 20 as to p. 16 l. development, the public disclosure of 21 3 and n.11 l. which could cause it competitive 4. harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 8). The other 22 material Sun seeks to seal is generalized and nonspecific, and Sun 23 has not adequately explained how or why disclosure would cause it 24 competitive harm. 25 445-29 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains confidential and sensitive License Agreement information about Sun’s litigation 26 between Depomed practices and products as well as and Sun (Bausch, Sun’s expenses associated with 27 Sun) Hatch-Waxman litigation and the existing generic drug product, the 1 public disclosure of which would 2 cause Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 25; Rush Decl. ¶ 6). 3 445-30 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains confidential, sensitive License Agreement information about non-party Teva’s 4 Between Depomed litigation practices and products, the and Watson (Bausch, public disclosure of which would 5 Teva) cause Teva competitive harm 6 (Savage Decl. ¶ 11; Rush Decl. ¶ 6). 445-37 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Sun states public disclosure of this 7 0009986 (Sun) email thread would disclose information about Sun’s internal 8 processes (Klein Decl. ¶ 26). But Sun has only proffered a boilerplate 9 justification that does not explain 10 how or why disclosure of this generalized, nonspecific information 11 would cause it competitive harm. 445-38 SUN_GLUMETZA- GRANTED. Contains confidential and specific 12 009989 (Sun) information regarding non-party 13 Sun’s internal production processes, the public disclosure of which could 14 cause Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 27). 15 463-4 BH-GLU00846857, DENIED. Bausch seeks to seal financial BH-GLU00846879 forecasts from 2013 for several 16 (Bausch) products including brand and generic 17 Glumetza during the relevant period of our litigation (See Rush Decl. ¶ 8). 18 Bausch provides only a boilerplate explanation that does not clarify how 19 or why public disclosure of Santarus’s internal forecasting from 20 2013 would now cause Santarus 21 competitive harm. Given that this material concerns a core issue in our 22 case that carries a strong presumption of public visibility, Bausch has not 23 justified sealing this material. 464-3 Promotion GRANTED Assertio contends the highlighted 24 Agreement between in part and provisions of the Depomed-Santarus 25 Depomed and DENIED in promotion agreement contain Santarus (Assertio) part. confidential material that provides 26 insight into how Assertio structures its business and licensing 27 arrangements (Schlessinger Decl. ¶¶ request as to the following provisions 1 that are closely related to the central 2 issues in this action: pp. 32–33 (Sections 7.1, 7.2); p. 35 (Section 3 7.5); p. 49 (Section 15.1). Assertio’s generic explanation of harm does not 4 justify sealing those terms, especially because of the strong presumption of 5 public visibility for that material. 6 Nevertheless, this order will grant Assertio’s request to seal the other 7 highlighted provisions that are less related to the heart of this matter that 8 provide insight into how Assertio structures its business relationships 9 and agreements, the public disclosure 10 of which could cause Bausch competitive harm. 11 464-4 Commercialization GRANTED Bausch contends that the highlighted Agreement Between in part and provisions of the Depomed-Santarus 12 Depomed and DENIED in commercialization agreement contain Santarus (Bausch) part. confidential terms (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). 13 This order DENIES the request as to 14 the following provisions that are closely related to the central issues in 15 this action: p. 40 (Section 7.2(c)); p. 47 (Section 9.2); Schedule 7.2; 16 Schedule 7.3(b); Schedule 11.1(m). 17 Bausch’s generic explanation of harm does not justify sealing those terms, 18 especially because of the strong presumption of public visibility for 19 that material. Nevertheless, this order will grant Bausch’s request to 20 seal the other highlighted provisions 21 that are less related to the heart of this matter that provide insight into 22 how Bausch structures its business relationships and agreements, the 23 public disclosure of which could cause Bausch competitive harm. 24 464-6 Royalty Purchase GRANTED The highlighted provisions contain 25 and Sale Agreement as to confidential information that provides between Depomed highlighted insight into how Assertio structures 26 and PDL Biopharma portions. its business and licensing (Assertio) arrangements, the public disclosure 27 of which could cause Assertio ¶¶ 5–10). Due, in part, to the 1 particularly narrow tailoring of the 2 material Assertio seeks to seal, Assertio has justified sealing this 3 information. 464-48 Amendment No. 1 to GRANTED. This agreement (which is still in 4 Royalty Purchase effect) contains confidential and Sale Agreement provisions that provide insight into 5 and Bill of Sale how Assertio structures its business 6 (Assertio) and licensing arrangements, the public disclosure of which could 7 cause Assertio competitive harm (Schlessinger Decl. ¶¶ 5–10). 8 466 Defendants’ Motion GRANTED The material this order seals contains for Summary as to material confidential, non-public information 9 Judgment (Sun, on p. 19 regarding non-parties Sun and Teva’s 10 Teva) between manufacturing processes, the public “Watson disclosure of which may cause them 11 experienced” competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 21; and Savage Decl. ¶ 12). Sun and Teva’s 12 “production justifications do not explain how or issues.” why disclosure of the other 13 Otherwise nonspecific, generalized material 14 DENIED. they seek to seal would cause them competitive harm. Without more, 15 Sun and Teva have not justified sealing those portions of the 16 document. 17 466-13 Settlement GRANTED. Contains confidential terms and Agreement and provisions that provides insight into 18 Release between how Assertio structures its business Depomed and and licensing arrangements, the 19 Bristol-Myers public disclosure of which could Squibb (Assertio) harm Assertio in future competitive 20 situations or business negotiations 21 (Schlessigner Decl. ¶¶ 5–10). 466-14 License and Services GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-13. 22 Agreement between Depomed and 23 Doehringer Ingelheim Int’l 24 (Assertio) 25 466-15 Non-exclusive GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-13. License Agreement 26 between Depomed and Jannssen 27 (Assertio) 466-21 Non-exclusive GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-13. 1 License, Covenant 2 Not to Sue and Right of Reference 3 Agreement between Depomed and Merck 4 (Assertio) 466-22 Deposition GRANTED. Contains confidential material 5 Transcript of Teva discussing non-party Teva’s 6 Rule 30(b)(6) manufacturing problems and the witness (Teva). actions Teva took to resolve them, 7 the public disclosure of which would cause Teva competitive harm 8 (Savage Decl. ¶ 12). 466-43 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains the specific, confidential 9 License Agreement terms and provisions Valeant and 10 Between Valeant and non-party Sun used to structure their Sun (Bausch, Sun). licensing arrangements and settle 11 their patent litigation, the public disclosure of which could cause them 12 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 25; Rush Decl. ¶ 6). 13 466-44 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains the specific, confidential 14 License Agreement terms and provisions Valeant and Between Valeant and non-party Watson used to structure 15 Watson (Bausch, their licensing arrangements and Teva) settle their patent litigation, the 16 public disclosure of which could 17 cause them competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 6; Savage Decl. ¶ 11). 18 466-46 Teva_Glumetza0031 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 8 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing 19 problems and the actions Teva took to resolve them, the public disclosure 20 of which would cause Teva 21 competitive harm (Savage Decl. ¶ 12). 22 466-47 Teva_Glumetza_002 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 77 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing 23 problems and the actions Teva took to resolve them, the public disclosure 24 of which would cause Teva 25 competitive harm (Savage Decl. ¶ 12). 26 466-48 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010269 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 27 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 1 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 28). 2 466-51 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-37. 0009986 (Sun) 3 466-52 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38. 0009989 (Sun) 4 466-54 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0009967 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 5 Sun’s products, the public disclosure 6 of which would cause Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 31). 7 466-55 Teva_Glumetza_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 70 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing 8 problems and actions Teva took to 9 resolve them, the public disclosure of which would cause Teva competitive 10 harm (Savage Decl. ¶ 12). 466-64 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 11 0020467 (Sun) regarding production of non-party Sun’s products, the public disclosure 12 of which would cause Sun 13 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 32). 466-66 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 14 0010037 (Sun) regarding production of non-party Sun’s products, the public disclosure 15 of which would cause Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 33). 16 466-67 Bausch’s Third GRANTED Sun says the material it seeks to seal 17 Supp. Objections and as to p. 22 ll. in this document contains proprietary Responses to 16–17. and confidential details about the 18 Purchasers First Set Otherwise formulation of Sun’s products as well of Interrogatories DENIED. as information about Sun’s settlement 19 (Sun) negotiations (Klein Decl. ¶ 23). 20 Sun’s request is GRANTED as to page 22, lines 16–17 because the 21 information therein concerns settlement terms, the public 22 disclosure of which could cause Sun competitive harm. However, the 23 other portions of the document Sun 24 seeks to seal either do not relate to Sun’s products or concern actions in 25 other litigation in federal court with a presumption of public visiblity. 26 Without further explanation, Sun has not justified sealing those portions of 27 the document. 466-73 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 1 0010047 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 2 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 3 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 34). 466-76 Assertio’s Second GRANTED Non-party Sun says the material it 4 Supp. Responses and as to p. 29 ll. seeks to seal in this document Objections to 3–5. contains proprietary and confidential 5 Plaintiffs’ First Set Otherwise details about the formulation of Sun’s 6 of Interrogatories DENIED. products as well as information about (Sun) Sun’s settlement negotiations (Klein 7 Decl. ¶ 24). Sun’s request is GRANTED as to page 29, lines 3–5 8 because that information concerns specific settlement terms, the public 9 disclosure of which could cause Sun 10 competitive harm. However, the other portions of the document Sun 11 seeks to seal either do not relate to Sun’s products or concern generic 12 actions taken in other patent litigation in federal court with a presumption of 13 public visibility. Sun has not 14 adequately explained how or why that information could now cause it 15 harm. Without further explanation, Sun has failed to justify sealing those 16 portions of the document. 17 466-77 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010308 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 18 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 19 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 35). 466-82 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See Entry for Dkt. No. 466-77. 20 0010308 (Sun) 21 466-83 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010926 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 22 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 23 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 37). 466-84 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 24 0009956 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 25 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 26 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 38). 466-85 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 27 0009952 (Sun) regarding production of non-party of which would cause Sun 1 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 39). 2 466-86 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010463 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 3 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 4 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 40). 466-87 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 5 0010731 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 6 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 7 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 41). 466-88 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 8 0009998 (Sun) regarding production of non-party Sun’s products, the public disclosure 9 of which would cause Sun 10 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 42). 466-90 Teva_Glumetza_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 11 08 (Teva) regarding Teva’s manufacturing problems and actions Teva took to 12 resolve them, the public disclosure of 13 which would cause Teva competitive harm (Savage Decl. ¶ 12). 14 466-93 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Sun states that this internal email 0010616 (Sun) reflects Sun’s decision making and 15 product launch information (Klein Decl. ¶ 43). But Sun does not 16 explain how public disclosure of 17 product launch information from 2016 would cause it competitive 18 harm now, nor what decision-making is revealed and how its disclosure 19 could cause it competitive harm. Without more, Sun has not justified 20 sealing this material. 21 466-94 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010546 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 22 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 23 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 44). 24 466-95 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010821 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 25 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 26 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 45). 466-99 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 27 0010791 (Sun) regarding production of non-party of which would cause Sun 1 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 46). 2 469-1 Retailer Plaintiffs’ GRANTED The material on page 19, lines 12–13 Opposition to as to p. 19 ll. addresses confidential details of non- 3 Motion to Exclude 12–13. party Sun’s manufacturing processes Leffler Opinions Otherwise and capabilities, the public disclosure 4 (Sun) DENIED. of which would cause Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 62). 5 The other material Sun seeks to seal 6 does not concern Sun’s manufacturing processes and 7 capabilities, so Sun has not justified sealing those portions of the 8 document. 475 Defendants’ GRANTED The material this order seals contains 9 Opposition to as to p. 8 ll. confidential information regarding 10 Humana’s Motion to 5–9, 16–21. non-parties Sun and Teva’s Exclude Strombom Otherwise manufacturing problems and the 11 (Sun, Teva) DENIED. actions they took to resolve them, the public disclosure of which could 12 cause Sun and Teva competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 16; Savage Decl. 13 ¶ 12). For the other highlighted 14 material, Sun and Teva’s justifications do not address 15 manufacturing problems and thus Sun and Teva have not justified 16 sealing the material. 17 475-6 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 0010791 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 18 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 19 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 47). 475-7 Teva_Glumetza_002 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-47. 20 77 (Teva) 21 475-8 Teva_Glumetza0031 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-46. 8 (Teva) 22 475-9 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38. 009989 (Sun) 23 476-7 Bausch’s Third GRANTED See entry for Dkt. No. 466-67. 24 Supp. Objections and as to p. 22 ll. Responses to 16–17. 25 Purchasers First Set Otherwise of Interrogatories DENIED. 26 (Sun) 477-1 Class Plaintiffs’ and DENIED. Sun states public disclosure of this 27 Humana’s email thread would reveal sensitive Defendants’ Motions manufacturing processes (Klein Decl. 1 to Exclude ¶ 63). But Sun’s boilerplate 2 Testimony of justification does not explain how or McGuire and why the generalized, nonspecific 3 Leitzinger (Sun) information in this document would cause it competitive harm. 4 485 Defendants’ Reply in GRANTED Sun and Teva assert that the Support of Their as to p. 4 n.6 highlighted portions contain internal 5 Motion to Exclude ll. 10–14. discussions and decision making 6 Testimony of Conti Otherwise regarding their manufacturing and Leitzinger (Sun, DENIED. processes and product characteristics, 7 Teva) the public disclosure of which would cause them competitive harm (Klein 8 Decl. ¶ 18; Savage Decl. ¶ 12). This order seals page 4 n.6 lines 10–14 on 9 those asserted grounds. For the other 10 highlighted material, Sun and Teva’s justifications do not address 11 manufacturing problems and thus Sun and Teva have not justified 12 sealing the material. 485-6 Teva_Glumetza_001 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-55. 13 70 (Teva) 14 485-7 Teva_Glumetza_002 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-47. 77 (Teva) 15 485-8 Teva_Glumetza0031 GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-46. 8 (Teva) 16 485-9 Deposition GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-22. 17 Transcript of Teva

Rule 30(b)(6) 18 witness (Teva). 485-11 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 19 0010791 (Sun) regarding production of non-party Sun’s products, the public disclosure 20 of which would cause Sun 21 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 49). 485-12 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-37. 22 009986 (Sun) 485-13 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-83. 23 0010926 (Sun) 24 485-14 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-84. 0009956 (Sun) 25 485-15 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-85. 0009952 (Sun) 26 485-16 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38. 0009989 (Sun) 27 485-17 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-87. 485-18 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 466-88. 1 0009998 (Sun) 2 487 Defendants’ Reply In GRANTED Non-party Sun states this material Support of Their as to p. 14 l. contains confidential information 3 Motion to Exclude 14. regarding production of its products, Leffler (Sun) Otherwise the public disclosure of which would 4 DENIED. cause it competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 63). This order seals page 14, 5 line 14 on that basis. But Sun’s 6 justification does not explain how or why the generalized, nonspecific 7 information contained in the other highlighted portions would cause Sun 8 competitive harm and thus does not justify sealing that material. 9 487-17 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-37. 10 0009986 (Sun) 487-18 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-38. 11 0009989 (Sun) 491-1 Plaintiffs’ DENIED. First, Assertio seeks to seal material 12 Opposition to related to its royalty agreement with 13 Assertio’s Motion PDL. Assertio contends the for Summary highlighted material reflects 14 Judgment (Assertio, confidential information that provides Bausch) insight into how Assertio structures 15 its business and licensing arrangements (Schlessinger Decl. ¶¶ 16 5–10). Second, Bausch seeks to seal 17 portions of the document describing the Depomed-Santarus 18 commercialization agreement on the ground that public disclosure of the 19 confidential terms would cause it competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). 20 But the parties do not sufficiently 21 explain how disclosure of the nonspecific, generalized descriptions 22 of the agreements would cause them harm. Moreover, the material here 23 goes to the heart of this case, and, in fact, was discussed in the order 24 denying summary judgment (Dkt. 25 No. 537). There accordingly exists a strong presumption of public 26 visibility here that Assertio and Bausch’s requests have not 27 overcome. 491-3 PDL-GLU-00014975 DENIED. Bausch seeks to seal this document in 1 (Exh. 2) (Bausch) its entirety, arguing it contains 2 confidential terms “with respect to other agreements settling patent 3 litigations,” the public disclosure of which would cause it competitive 4 harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). But the document includes material related to 5 the settlement agreement at the heart 6 of our litigation so there is a strong presumption of public visibility in 7 this instance. Bausch’s request here is generic and overbroad. 8 Accordingly, Bausch has failed to justify sealing this material. 9 491-3 Settlement and GRANTED. See entry for Dkt. No. 445-30. 10 (Exh. 7) License Agreement between Depomed, 11 Valeant, Santarus, and Watson (Bausch, 12 Teva) 493-1 Purchasers’ DENIED. Non-party Sun says the highlighted 13 Opposition to portions of this document “contain

14 Lupin’s Motion for confidential details of Sun’s Summary Judgment manufacturing processes, nonpublic 15 (Sun) settlement negotiations, and internal decision-making,” the public 16 disclosure of which would cause Sun 17 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 64). Sun has not justified sealing here. 18 Sun has not adequately explained why the generalized, nonspecific 19 statements it seeks to seal that involve issues from many years ago 20 would now cause it competitive 21 harm. In addition, many of the proposed redactions are superfluous 22 and indicate that Sun has not appropriately tailored its request. 23 Given these deficiencies, the strong presumption of public visibility 24 outweighs Sun’s generic claims of 25 competitive harm. 491-13 BH-GLU00709249 DENIED. Bausch says this email chain 26 (Bausch) “contain[s] highly confidential, sensitive business information of 27 Bausch and Bausch’s specific pricing arrangements, including 1 competitively sensitive rebate figures 2 (or information that can be used to calculate such rebate figures), which 3 factor into net pricing paid” (Rush Decl. ¶ 7). This internal, June 2014 4 email chain discussed the contemporaneous price hike for 5 Gluemetza. Given the fact that this 6 document concerns the heart of this case, and the resulting strong 7 presumption of public visibility, Bausch’s generic justification for 8 sealing fails. 493-35 Indemnity GRANTED. Contains confidential terms and 9 Agreement Relating provisions of the agreement settling 10 to Settlement the patent litigation between Agreement Between defendants and non-party Sun, the 11 Depomed, Valeant, public disclosure of which could Santarus, and Sun cause the parties to the agreement 12 (Bausch) competitive harm (Rush Decl. ¶ 5). 493-58 Jaskot Deposition DENIED. Non-party Sun states that the 13 Transcript (Sun) highlighted portions of the transcript 14 contain “confidential and proprietary information regarding Sun’s 15 manufacturing capabilities and processes” as well as its regulatory 16 affairs, the public disclosure of which 17 could cause it competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 69). But here Sun 18 seeks to seal large portions of the transcript that have little to any 19 connection to Sun’s stated justifications. For example, Sun 20 seeks to seal Ms. Jaskot’s statement 21 that she only listed documents in her report that supported her conclusions 22 (Tr. 237). Sun also seeks to seal Ms. Jaskot’s opinions about situations in 23 the but-for world Sun would have faced without the Lupin settlement 24 without sufficiently explaining how 25 these hypotheticals and general observations could now cause Sun 26 competitive harm (e.g. id. at 159–61). Sun’s overbroad, generic request 27 fails. 493-72 SUN_GLUMETZA_ GRANTED. Contains confidential information 1 0000735 (Sun) regarding production of non-party 2 Sun’s products, the public disclosure of which would cause Sun 3 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 70). 493-73 PX0027 (Sun) GRANTED Contains confidential information 4 regarding production of non-party Sun’s products, the public disclosure 5 of which would cause Sun 6 competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 71). 493-95 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Non-party Sun explains that this 7 0010611 (Sun) ANDA status letter from the FDA contains proprietary and non-public 8 information, the public disclosure of which could cause it competitive 9 harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 71). But Sun’s 10 boilerplate justification does not explain how disclosure of this status 11 letter from 2013 could now cause Sun harm. Sun’s boilerplate 12 explanation does not justify sealing this document. 13 493-101 SUN_GLUMETZA_ DENIED. Non-party Sun explains that this 14 0000002 (Sun) patent amendment contains a nonpublic regulatory filing related to 15 its pharmaceutical products, the public disclosure of which would 16 cause it competitive harm (Klein 17 Decl. ¶ 65). But besides the general cover letter, the document merely 18 contains the complaint from Depomed, Inc. v. Sun Pharma Global 19 FZE, No. C 11-03553 JAP (TJB) (D.N.J.) (Judge Joel A. Pisano). Sun 20 has not justified keeping this 21 document under seal. 493-110 Settlement and GRANTED. Contains confidential material that 22 License Agreement provides insight into how Bausch and between Depomed, non-party Sun structured their 23 Valeant, Santarus, licensing arrangements and settled and Sun (Bausch, their patent litigation as well as the 24 Sun) specific terms the parties would use 25 in settlement negotiations, the public disclosure of which could cause Sun 26 and Bausch competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 25; Rush Decl. ¶ 6). 27 500 Defendants’ Reply in DENIED as The highlighted material this order 1 Support of Their to p. 19 seals contains confidential 2 Motion for Summary segment “a information regarding production of Judgment (Sun) result . . . non-party Sun’s products, the public 3 attributable disclosure of which would cause Sun to:”. competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 73). 4 Otherwise For the material this order does not GRANTED. seal, Sun has not adequately 5 explained how or why disclosure of 6 those nonspecific, generalized statements would now cause Sun 7 competitive harm. 8 5. PURCHASERS SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO LUPIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION 9 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 521). 10 Direct purchaser plaintiffs conditionally filed under seal their surreply in opposition to 11 Lupin and Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 521). Defendants did not file 12 a supporting declaration to establish the documents, or portions thereof, were sealable, as 13 required by our local rules. See Civ. L.R. 79-5. Therefore, the motion to file the documents 14 under seal is DENIED. 15 6. PURCHASERS’ CORRECTIONS TO THEIR OMNIBUS MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 528). 16 17 In their motion correcting their omnibus motion to seal, Dkt. No. 528, direct purchaser 18 plaintiffs filed corrected, complete versions of documents cited in the parties’ summary 19 judgment and Daubert motions: Dkt. Nos. 493-58 and 493-59. In addition, direct purchaser 20 plaintiffs also docketed PX 1237, Dkt. No. 528-2, which had been cited in their opposition 21 briefing but not filed with the Court. First, non-party Sun’s request to seal Dkt. No. 493-58 is 22 discussed above. Because Sun did not file a further declaration regarding the corrected version 23 of Dkt. No. 493-58, the previous decision applies with equal force to the corrected version of 24 the document. Second, no party sought to seal Dkt. No. 493-59 in its omnibus motion or filed 25 a declaration supporting the sealing of the document after purchaser plaintiffs filed the 26 corrected version here, as required by our local rules. Third, no party filed a supporting 27 declaration to establish that Dkt. No. 528-2, or portions thereof, are sealable, as required by our 7. LUPIN’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 1 IN LIMINE NO. 5 (DKT. NO. 618). 2 Upon review of Lupin’s motion to seal and the accompanying declaration from non-party 3 Sun, Dkt. No. 618-1, this order finds Sun has made the requisite showing to seal certain 4 portions of the documents related to Defendants’ motion in limine No. 5. The proposed 5 redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows: 6 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning No. 7 618-3 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 8 0030 (Sun) regarding non-party Sun’s manufacturing processes and 9 product development, the public disclosure of which would cause 10 Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 11 6). 618-4 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 12 0180 regarding non-party Sun’s manufacturing processes and 13 product development, the public disclosure of which would cause 14 Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 15 7). 618-5 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 16 0477 regarding non-party Sun’s manufacturing processes and 17 product development, the public disclosure of which would cause 18 Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 19 8). 618-6 SUN_GLUMETZA_001 GRANTED. Contains confidential information 20 0198 regarding non-party Sun’s manufacturing processes and 21 product development, the public disclosure of which would cause 22 Sun competitive harm (Klein Decl. ¶ 23 9). 24 8. DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT WITH ASSERTIO (DKT. NO. 25 655). 26 Upon review of the direct purchaser class’s motion to seal and Assertio’s accompanying 27 declaration, Dkt. No. 655-1, this order finds Assertio has made the requisite showing to seal 1 certain portions of the class’s motion for preliminary approval of class settlement with 2 Assertio. The proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. This order rules as follows: 3 Dkt. Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning 4 No. 654-10 | Shadowen Decl. Exh. 9 GRANTED. Contains Assertio’s detailed and 5 — Assertio financial comprehensive financial statements, 6 statements including balance sheets, income statements, information on working 7 capital, balances in accounts receivable, and other information 8 (Stock Decl. The public disclosure of this confidential 9 information would cause Assertio 10 competitive harm — for example, when negotiating business 11 arrangements, it could give the other party undue leverage over terms (id. %L at J] 7-11).

13 654-11 | Declaration of Dr. Mark | GRANTED Contains specific numbers for L. Frigo as to Assertio’s cash position, working 14 highlighted capital, accounts receivable, and 15 portions. revenue, the public disclosure of which would cause Assertio Qa 16 competitive harm (Stock Decl. 6— 11). Notably, Assertio has not = 17 redacted more general descriptions 8 of its financial position. 19 The movants shall file public versions of the foregoing documents in full compliance 20 with this order by FEBRUARY 11, 2022, AT NOON. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: December 29, 2021.

26 l - IV WILLIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28