In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.

Opinion

Davis Polk sames | MeCanmy pais Polk & Wardwell LLP DOCUMENT * exington Avenue ELECTRONICALLY FILED james.mcclammy@davispolk.com New York, NY 10017 davispolk.com DOC #: DATE FILED: 4/2/2025

November 12, 2024 Hon. Nelson S. Roman United States District Judge Southern District of New York 300 Quarropas Street White Plains, NY 10601-4150 Re: Request to File Debtors-Appellees’ Supplemental Appendix Under Seal Ascent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., No. 24-cv-06166 (NSR) Dear Judge Roman: | write on behalf of the Debtors-Appellees Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., and Rhodes Technologies in connection with the above-captioned appeal to respectfully request permission to file the Debtors-Appellees’ Supplemental Appendix under seal. Sufficient cause exists for the Court to grant the relief requested herein because the Supplemental Appendix includes two prepetition contracts (the “Agreements”) between the Debtors-Appellees and Ascent Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Ascent”) relating to a the validity and enforceability of certain of the Debtors-Appellees’ patents. It is well established that a party may file documents under seal where “closure is essential to Gf) preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of x Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). Among those higher values, courts have routinely found that good cause exists to protect from public disclosure confidential business or Q commercial information. See, e.g., Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 2008 WL 199537, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) (“The interest in protecting business information that might harm Zz. a litigant’s competitive standing has, at a minimum, been recognized by the Supreme Court as potentially (1) sufficient to defeat the common law presumption of access.” (internal citation and quotations omitted)), □□□□□ © sub nom. Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., Ind., 347 F. App’x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Mark v. Gawker Media LLC, 2015 WL 7288641, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015) (granting = redaction request “[iJn the interest of protecting confidential business information”). The structure and certain terms of the Agreements constitute confidential commercial information. Disclosure of the specific = terms of the Agreements could provide unique insight to companies in negotiating future transactions with the Debtors-Appellees on a wide range of commercial issues, which could disadvantage the Debtors- Appellees in such future negotiations. The Debtors-Appellees therefore seek to keep this information under seal in order to prevent the deleterious effects of disclosure. Based on the Debtors-Appellees’ representation that the Supplemental Appendix contains confidential information, the Debtors-Appellees respectfully request the Court permit the Debtors-Appellees to file the Supplemental Appendix under seal. Respectfully submitted, The parties have submitted several separate requests to file papers under seal. The parties are directed to confer and file a single /s/ James |. McClammy proposed order addressing the documents and docket entries, if any, they wish to have under seal. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to James |. McClammy terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 8, 13, and 14. Dated: April 2, 2025 White Plains, NY SO ORDERED: Zz i-"]