Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC

E.D. North Carolina

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 6, 2022

Docket5:19-cv-00509-D

StatusUnknown

This text of Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC (Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC, (E.D.N.C. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-509-D

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OORDER ) ATTICUS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s unopposed motion to seal portions of its proposed reply to its Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendant seeks to seal these filings on the ground they contain sensitive and highly confidential information concerning third parties’ processes for the manufacture of azoxystrobin. Defendant has filed a proposed redacted version of the documents, omitting the portions it contends should not be available to the public. For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion and supporting memorandum, the court finds that the public’s common law right of access is outweighed by the interests of Defendant and third-party manufacturers in protecting against competitive and/or financial harm were such information made public. , 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984). Public notice of Defendant’s request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to object have been provided by the filing of its motion, and no objections have been filed with the court. Defendant has narrowly tailored its request to remove only information that is sensitive and confidential and not otherwise publicly known. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Seal [DE #283] is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Proposed Reply in Support of its Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE #276-1] shall be SEALED. A redacted version of this filing appears to have been provisionally sealed on the court’s docket at DE #284, and the clerk is directed to UNSEAL the provisionally sealed document at DE #284 unless a motion to seal is filed by within seven (7) days of the date this order is entered. This 6th day of January 2022. Tbr A Aerach KIMBERLY A. SWANK United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-509-D

SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OORDER ) ATTICUS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on Defendant’s unopposed motion to seal portions of its proposed reply to its Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendant seeks to seal these filings on the ground they contain sensitive and highly confidential information concerning third parties’ processes for the manufacture of azoxystrobin. Defendant has filed a proposed redacted version of the documents, omitting the portions it contends should not be available to the public. For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion and supporting memorandum, the court finds that the public’s common law right of access is outweighed by the interests of Defendant and third-party manufacturers in protecting against competitive and/or financial harm were such information made public. , 743 F.2d 231 (4th Cir. 1984). Public notice of Defendant’s request to seal and a reasonable opportunity to object have been provided by the filing of its motion, and no objections have been filed with the court. Defendant has narrowly tailored its request to remove only information that is sensitive and confidential and not otherwise publicly known. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Seal [DE #283] is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Proposed Reply in Support of its Seventh Motion to Compel Discovery [DE #276-1] shall be SEALED. A redacted version of this filing appears to have been provisionally sealed on the court’s docket at DE #284, and the clerk is directed to UNSEAL the provisionally sealed document at DE #284 unless a motion to seal is filed by within seven (7) days of the date this order is entered. This 6th day of January 2022. Tbr A Aerach KIMBERLY A. SWANK United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Atticus, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/syngenta-crop-protection-llc-v-atticus-llc-nced-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack