Lupin Ltd. v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2024
Docket1:22-cv-07656
StatusUnknown

This text of Lupin Ltd. v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lupin Ltd. v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lupin Ltd. v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

| USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK soc ty FILED DATE FILED:_ 3/15/2024 LUPIN LTD., Plaintiff, No. 1:22-cv-07656-JHR-RWL v. PROTECTIVE ORDER SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and BAUSCH HEALTH US, LLC, Defendants.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Lupin Ltd. and Defendants Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bausch Health US, LLC’s (collectively, the “Parties,” and individually, a “Party”) request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of certain non-public and confidential material that will be exchanged pursuant to and during the course of discovery in Lupin Ltd. v. Salix Pharms., Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-07656-JHR-RWL (this “Action”’); WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery, and that the protection it affords only extends to the limited information or items that are entitled, under the applicable legal principles, to confidential treatment; WHEREAS, the Parties further acknowledge that this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, and based on the representations of the Parties that discovery in this case will involve confidential documents or information, the public disclosure of which would cause harm to the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, and to protect against injury caused by dissemination of confidential documents and information, this Court finds good cause to issue an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this Action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including, without limitation, the Parties to this Action, their representatives, agents, experts, and consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this Action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Protective Order—shall adhere to the following terms: 1. Any person subject to this Protective Order who receives from any other person subject to this Protective Order (the “Receiving Party”) any “Discovery Material” (..e., information of any kind produced or disclosed pursuant to and in the course of discovery in this Action) that is designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential — Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only”

pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order (hereinafter, “Protected Discovery Material”) shall not disclose such Protected Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder. 2. The Party producing any given Discovery Material, including third parties, (the “Disclosing Party”) may designate “Confidential” only such portion of such material the public disclosure of which is either restricted by law or would cause harm to the business, commercial, financial, or personal interests of the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed and that consists of the following categories of information that have not intentionally been publicly disclosed previously: a. financial information (including, without limitation, profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sales margins); b. material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; c. business plans, product development information, marketing plans and sensitive and/or proprietary commercial information, including but not limited to product formulas and/or specifications; d. information required to be kept confidential pursuant to any agreement with a third party; e. any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or f. any other category of information hereinafter given Confidential status by the Court. 3. The Disclosing Party producing any given Discovery Material may designate as “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” such material—including discovery responses, deposition transcripts and exhibits or other written information produced in response to discovery requested in this Action, or tangible things—that in good faith a Party or third party reasonably believes to contain trade secrets, know-how, research and development of products or formulations, business plans or forecasts, market share analysis or projections, and cost and pricing data or analysis, commercially sensitive information, any material (or portion of such material) which could cause a significant competitive or commercial disadvantage if shared with the Parties to this case (with the exception of individuals or entities listed in Paragraph 9), and such additional categories as may be reasonably agreed to by the Parties upon request of a Party, disclosure of which to another Party or third party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 4. With respect to Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the producing person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” by stamping or otherwise clearly marking “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility. The Parties shall follow the guidance contained in Judge Rearden’s or Judge Lehrburger’s Individual Rules and Practices, as applicable, requirements to reach agreement on applying redactions to such materials. 5. With respect to deposition transcripts, a Disclosing Party or that person’s counsel may designate such portion “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” either by: (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” information, in which case the reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony (consisting of both question and answer) in a separate volume and mark it as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only Information Governed by Protective Order”; or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days of the conclusion of a deposition, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript and/or the specific exhibits that are to be designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only”, in which case all counsel receiving the transcript will be responsible for marking the copies of the designated transcript or exhibit (as the case may be) in their possession or under their control as directed by the producing person or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following the conclusion of a deposition, the entire deposition transcript will be treated as if it had been designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only”. 6. If at any time prior to the trial of this Action, a Disclosing Party realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material previously produced by the Disclosing Party without limitation should be designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only”, then the Disclosing Party may so designate by so apprising all prior recipients of the Discovery Material in writing, and thereafter such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will be deemed to be, and treated as, “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only” under the terms of this Protective Order. 7.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lupin Ltd. v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lupin-ltd-v-salix-pharmaceuticals-inc-nysd-2024.