Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02241-CDS-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 Research Development Foundation, 9 Defendant. 10 And related counterclaims. 11 12 This is a contract dispute arising out of a royalty agreement between Plaintiff Pacira 13 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Research Development Foundation (“RDF”). Pacira sues RDF and 14 RDF counterclaims for declaratory relief regarding whether Pacira owes royalty payments to 15 RDF for certain of Pacira’s products under the terms of the agreement. Both Pacira and RDF 16 move to seal portions of and exhibits to their respective summary judgment briefs, responses, and 17 replies. After the parties filed their respective motions to seal, they filed a joint submission 18 providing compelling reasons for sealing certain documents in their motions and withdrawing 19 their confidentiality designations for others. (ECF No. 132). Given the parties’ representations in 20 their joint submission and their motions, the Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ 21 motions to seal. (ECF Nos. 101, 103, 118, 121, 124, 126, and 128). 22 I. Discussion. 23 A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and 24 must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 25 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 26 (9th Cir. 2016). A party seeking to seal judicial records attached to motions more than 27 tangentially related to the merits of the case must meet the “compelling reasons” standard. See 1 motions not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the “good cause” standard 2 applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 1095, 1101. That a party has designated a document 3 as confidential under a protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to 4 seal a filed document. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133, 1138 5 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 6 Here, as a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the compelling reasons standard 7 applies. The parties’ motions seek to seal documents attached to, and redact portions of, their 8 respective summary judgment briefings. Because these motions are more than tangentially 9 related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons standard applies. 10 Through their joint submission, the parties agree to unseal the below exhibits, which 11 exhibits they have attached to their joint submission. 12 13 Document title Document Items to be unsealed Motion to seal 14 ECF No. ECF No. 15 Pacira’s sealed motion for 106 Exhibits A-3, A-6, A-11, 103 16 summary judgment and A-12 17 RDF’s sealed response to 123 Exhibits 1 through 9, 13 124 18 Pacira’s motion for summary through 23, and 25 through 19 judgment 27 20 Pacira’s sealed reply in 129 Pacira’s reply brief and its 128 21 support of its motion for Exhibits D-1, D-3, D-4, D- 22 summary judgment 5, and D-6 23 RDF’s sealed motion for 99 Exhibits 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 101 24 summary judgment 21, 32, and 33 25 Pacira’s sealed objections to 119 Pacira’s objection brief and 118 26 the evidence offered in its Exhibits D-1, D-3, D-4, 27 and D-5 1 support of RDF’s motion for 2 summary judgment 3 Pacira’s sealed response to 122 Exhibits A-1, A-3, A-5, A- 121 4 RDF’s motion for summary 6, A-7, A-10, A-12, A-14, 5 judgment and A-15 6 RDF’s sealed reply in 130 Exhibits 50 and 51 126 7 support of its motion for 8 summary judgment 9 10 The parties request that the remaining exhibits to their briefs either be entirely sealed or 11 redacted and that portions of their briefs referring to those exhibits also be redacted. These 12 exhibits and portions of their briefs include information related to how Pacira manufactures its 13 EXPAREL® product; Pacira’s applications to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that 14 product; Pacira’s patent portfolio and strategy; compensation information of counsel; and 15 testimony about Pacira’s privilege log and attorney-client communications. (ECF No. 132 at 1- 16 8). Having reviewed the parties’ joint submission, the Court finds that the parties have 17 demonstrated compelling reasons to seal each of the exhibits and portions of the exhibits they list 18 along with the portions of their briefs that refer to those exhibits. The information the parties 19 seek to seal or redact contains trade secrets, proprietary information, the internal compensation 20 structure of counsel, and attorney-client privileged information. The parties have a strong interest 21 in keeping this type of information private. And given the fact that the parties have agreed to 22 unseal multiple documents and have tailored their redactions to that which is necessary, the 23 public’s interest in viewing the sealed documents is lessened. The public can still substantially 24 understand the judicial process without viewing the sealed documents. 25 However, because the parties’ joint submission has modified the relief their motions to 26 seal request, the Court grants those motions in part and denies them in part. Those motions are 27 granted in part to the extent they seek to seal the same information that the parties seek to seal 1 through their joint submission. They are denied in part as moot because the parties have agreed 2 to unseal certain information and have filed that information on the public docket. 3 Additionally, Pacira only seeks to seal page 3, lines 11-13 of its motion for summary 4 judgment. (ECF No. 102). However, the currently public version of that motion contains more 5 redactions than the parties’ joint submission requests. (Id.). And the parties do not attach an 6 updated version of that motion to their joint submission. The Court will thus require Pacira to file 7 an updated public version of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 102) on the docket. 8 Pacira also only seeks to seal page 8, lines 13 and 14 and page 15, lines 24 and 15 of its 9 response to RDF’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 120). However, the currently 10 public version of that response contains more redactions than the parties’ joint submission 11 requests. (Id.). And the parties do not attach an updated version of that motion to their joint 12 submission. The Court will thus require Pacira to file an updated public version of its response to 13 RDF’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 120) on the docket. 14 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 101, 103, 16 118, 121, 124, 126, and 128) are granted in part and denied in part. They are granted in part to 17 the extent they seek to seal the same information that the parties seek to seal through their joint 18 submission. They are denied in part as moot because the parties have agreed to unseal certain 19 information and have filed that information on the public docket. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF Nos. 99, 106, 119, 122, 123, 129, and 130 shall 21 remain under seal. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Pacira shall file an updated public version of its 23 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 102) and its response to RDF’s motion for summary 24 judgment (ECF No. 120) on the docket. 25 26 DATED: May 17, 2023 27 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS