In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation

Opinion

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOoRE LLP WORLDWIDE PLAZA HN W. WHITE GEORGE E. ZOBITZ DAVID J. PERKINS EVAN MEHRAN NORRIS R. CHESLER GEORGE A. STEPHANAKIS 825 EIGHTH AVENUE J. LEONARD TETI, II LAUREN M, ROSENBER L. GORDON DARIN P. MCATEE DB. SCOTT BENNETT MICHAEL L. ARNOLD BERT H. BARON GARY A. BORNSTEIN New YORK, NY |OOI9-7475 TING S. CHEN HEATHER A. BENJAMIN MERCADO TIMOTHY G, CAMERON CHRISTOPHER K, FARGO MATTHEW J. BOBBY RISTINE A. VARNEY KARIN A. DEMASI TELEPHONE: +1-212-474-1000 DAVID M. STUART DANIEL J. CERQUEIRA T. BARBUR DAVID S. FINKELSTEIN AARON M. GRUBER ALEXANDRA C. DENNIK S. GOLDMAN RACHEL G. SKAISTIS FACSIMILE: +1-212-474-3700 ©. KEITH HALLAM, III HELAM GEBREMARIAM HALL PAUL H. ZUMBRO OMIDH. NASAB MATTHEW G. JONES LIE A. NORTH ERIC W. HILFERS DAMARIS HERNANDEZ MATTHEW M. KELLY DREW W. NEEDHAM GEORGE F. SCHOEN CITYPOINT JONATHAN J. KATZ DAVID H. KORN L. BURNS ERIK R. TAVZEL ONE ROPEMAKER STREET DAVID L. PORTILLA BRITTANY L. SUKIENNI 8, FORREST CRAIG F, ARCELLA LONDON EC2Y SHR RORY A, LERARIS ANDREW M. WARK R. HUMMEL DAMIEN R. ZOUBEK TELEPHONE: +44-20-7453-1000 KARA L. MUNGOVAN J. KAPPOS LAUREN ANGELILLI FACSIMILE: +44-20-7860-1150 MARGARET T. SEGALL TO BERT |, TOWNSEND, It ALYSSAK.CAPLES ANDREW. ELKEN PARTNER EMERITUS ILIP J. BOECKMAN JENNIFER S. CONWAY JENNY HOCHENBERG SAMUEL C. BUTLER V. FOGG MINH VAN NGO > VANESSA A, LAVELY SS J. SAEED KEVIN J. ORSINI WRITER S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER G.J, LIGELIS JR. J. STARK MATTHEW MORREALE +]-212-474-1752 MICHAEL E. MARIANI OF COUNSEL E. DUNN JOHN D. BURETTA LAUREN R. KENNEDY MICHAEL L. SCHLER I. GREENE J. WESLEY EARNHARDT > SASHA ROSENTHAL-LARREA CHRISTOPHER J. KELL R. MARRIOTT YONATAN EVEN WRITER S EMAIL ADDRESS ALLISON M. WEIN KIMBERLEY S. DREXLEF A, PASKIN BENJAMIN GRUENSTEIN jnorth@cravath.com MICHAEL P, ADDIS NICOLE F, FOSTER DREW J. PITTS JOSEPH D. ZAVAGLIA JUSTIN C. CLARKE LILLIAN S. □□□□□□□□□ T. REYNOLDS STEPHEN M. KESSING SHARONMOYEE GOSWAMI KIMBERLY A. GROUSSE L. RYAN LAUREN A. MOSKOWITZ So ordered. Cc. DANIEL HAAREN ANDREI HARASYMIAK /s/ Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein A 25.2021 ugus September 1, 2021 8 ° In re Novartis and Par Antitrust Litigation, 1:18-cv-04361-AKH Dear Judge Hellerstein: Pursuant to Rules 4.A and 4.B.11 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice, Paragraph 19 of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 95) and applicable law, I write on behalf of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG (together, “Novartis”) requesting permission to file portions of certain documents under seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Finding an At-Issue Waiver of Privilege and Work Product (‘Plaintiffs’ Motion”) (ECF No. 357). Novartis respectfully requests that the Court issue an order sealing certain portions of the Exhibits to the Declaration of Dan Litvin in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion (the “Litvin Declaration”) because they relate to a confidential license agreement regarding a Novartis product. Novartis has conferred with Plaintiffs and they take no position on whether or not the documents should be sealed. Under Rule 4.A of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice, a party must obtain the Court’s authority to file documents under seal, which is appropriate if “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 814 F.3d 132, 144 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Jn re N.Y. Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir.1987)). While there is a “common law presumption in favor of permitting public access to judicial documents,” the court must consider the “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). In particular, “privacy interests of innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation.” /n re Savitt/Adler Litig., No. 95-CV-1842 (RSP/DRH), 1997 WL 797511, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 1997). “There is no established presumption of public access with respect to confidential settlement discussions and documents.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., No. 3:11-CV-1209 CSH, 2013 WL 4012772, at *5 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2013). Rather, “[t]he Second Circuit has recognized

ITDMS:5698023v4:08/25/2021--05:39 PM]

the value of confidentiality in settlement negotiations.” /d. (approving redactions of exhibits containing confidential settlement discussions); see also Refco Grp. Ltd., LLC v. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P., No. 13 CIV. 1654 RA HBP, 2015 WL 4298572, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (finding that the interest in maintaining “confidential information concerning an agreement with a non-party entity [] outweigh[ed] the public interest in access to the judicial documents”). The Court previously granted two similar motions to seal documents related to confidential settlement and license agreements regarding Novartis products. On October 26, 2020, Novartis filed a letter motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Rule 37 Motion to Compel Novartis to Designate a 30(b)(6) Witness (“Motion to Compel”) (ECF No. 287), Novartis’ Opposition to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 294), and certain exhibits to both briefs because they quoted from or related to two confidential settlement and license agreements regarding Lotrel and another Novartis product. (ECF No. 292). Novartis subsequently filed a letter motion to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 300), which also discussed a confidential settlement and license agreement. (ECF No. 305). The Court granted those motions on October 28, 2020 (ECF No. 302) and November 6, 2020 (ECF No. 308), respectively. The Exhibits to the Litvin Declaration were filed under seal on August 18, 2021. Certain of the Exhibits relate to the same confidential settlement and license agreements at issue in Novartis’s October 26, 2020 and November 4, 2020 letter motions, which were granted by the Court. In particular, Exhibits 9 and 15 to the Litvin Declaration discuss Novartis’s confidential license agreement with a third party regarding a Novartis product.! Novartis cannot disclose the existence of that agreement without the third party’s consent. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth in Novartis’s prior letter motions (ECF Nos. 292, 305), Exhibits 9 and 15 to the Litvin Declaration should remain sealed in part. Novartis has filed those documents with appropriate redactions. Novartis is available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have any questions or wish to discuss this request.

Sinc : — wy ‘Julie A. North

' Exhibit 9 to the Litvin Declaration was already filed with redactions in connection with Novartis’s motion to seal exhibits to the Motion to Compel, which the Court granted (see ECF Nos. 292, 298.2, 302).

The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 1050 New York, New York 10007

BY ECF