United States District Court, D. Kansas
IN RE EpiPen Epinephrine Injection, USP Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation This Document Applies to Consumer Class s MDL No. 2785
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Daniel
D. Crabtree United States District Judge
This
matter comes before the court on the class plaintiffs'
Renewed Motion to File Under Seal Certain Class Certification
Exhibits. Doc. 1428. As the court previously has discussed,
the Supreme Court recognizes a “general right to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S 589, 597 (1978) (citations
omitted). Nevertheless, a party may rebut the presumption of
access to judicial records by demonstrating that
“countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public
interests in access.” Mann v. Boatright, 477
F.3d 1140, 1149 (10th Cir. 2007) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). The party seeking to deny access
must shoulder the burden to establish a sufficiently
significant interest that outweighs the presumption of
access. Id. (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
This
legal standard requires federal courts to assess competing
interests, weighing those interests that favor the general
right of public access and those that genuinely deserve some
protection. When engaging in this endeavor, the case
authority confers substantial discretion on district judges.
See, e.g., Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599; see
also Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149. Applying this standard, the
court grants the Renewed Motion to File Under Seal Certain
Class Certification Exhibits in part and denies it in part in
the following manner:
• The court grants the request to file under seal
unredacted versions of the class plaintiffs' Memorandum
of Law in Support of Class Certification and the Expert
Reports of Prof. Einer Elhauge (Exhibit 1), Dr. Meredith
Rosenthal (Exhibit 3), and Dr. Andrew Torrance (Exhibit 4).
Also, the court orders the class plaintiffs to file redacted
copies of those documents publicly with redactions for
sections of those documents that rely on or discuss exhibits
or documents the court has approved for filing under seal, as
outlined in this Order.
• The court grants the request to file under seal
Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 14-19, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30-32, 35-37, 39,
40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 67,
68, 70, 72-75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, and 92.
• The court denies the request to file under seal
Exhibits 22, 41, 43, 46, 49, 51, 87, and 89.
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 13. The court agrees with Anthem that the
testimony at 272:1-273:2 does not qualify for a sealed
filing, but the other portions of the testimony qualify for a
sealed filing. The court thus orders the class plaintiffs to
file an unredacted version of Exhibit 13 under seal. Also, it
orders the class plaintiffs to file Exhibit 13 publicly and
with a redaction of all testimony except the
testimony at 272:1-273:2.
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 20. The court agrees with the class plaintiffs
that the testimony at 192:14-20 qualifies for a sealed
filing, but the other portions of the testimony do not
qualify for a sealed filing. The court thus orders the class
plaintiffs to file an unredacted version of Exhibit 20 under
seal. Also, it orders the class plaintiffs to file Exhibit 20
publicly and with a redaction only of the testimony
at 192:14-20.
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 23. The court agrees with Mylan that the
November 4, 2013 email (sent at 8:48 a.m.) beginning on the
bottom of page 3 (Bates number MYEP00305855) and continuing
through page 4 (Bates number MYEP00305856) qualifies for a
sealed filing, but the court disagrees that the other
portions of the document qualify for a sealed filing. The
court thus orders the class plaintiffs to file an unredacted
version of Exhibit 23 under seal. Also, it orders the class
plaintiffs to file Exhibit 23 publicly and with a redaction
only of the November 4, 2013 email (sent at 8:48
a.m.) beginning on the bottom of page 3 (Bates number
MYEP00305855) and continuing through page 4 (Bates number
MYEP00305856).
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 25. The court agrees with Mylan that the
testimony at 69:6-72:25, 197:1-200:25, and 241:1-248:25
qualifies for a sealed filing, but the court disagrees that
the other portions of the testimony qualify for a sealed
filing. The court thus orders the class plaintiffs to file an
unredacted version of Exhibit 25 under seal. Also, it orders
the class plaintiffs to file Exhibit 25 publicly and with a
redaction only of the testimony at 69:6-72:25,
197:1-200:25, and 241:1-248:25.
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 26. The court agrees with Mylan that the
testimony at 62:16-68:25 qualifies for a sealed filing, but
the court finds that the other portions of the testimony do
not qualify for a sealed filing. The court thus orders the
class plaintiffs to file an unredacted version of Exhibit 26
under seal. Also, it orders the class plaintiffs to file
Exhibit 26 publicly and with a redaction only of the
testimony at 62:16-68:25.
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 54. The court agrees with Mylan that the first
page of the document (Bates number MYEP00877436) qualifies
for a sealed filing, but the court disagrees that the
remaining portions of the document qualify for a sealed
filing. The court thus orders the class plaintiffs to file an
unredacted version of Exhibit 54 under seal. Also, it orders
the class plaintiffs to file Exhibit 54 publicly and with a
redaction only of the first page of the document
(Bates number MYEP00877436).
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 64. The court agrees with the class plaintiffs
that the testimony at 207:4-208:4 does not qualify for a
sealed filing but the remaining portions of the testimony
qualify for a sealed filing. The court thus orders the class
plaintiffs to file an unredacted version of Exhibit 64 under
seal. Also, it orders the class plaintiffs to file Exhibit 64
publicly and with a redaction of all testimony
except the testimony at 207:4-208:4.
• The court grants in part the request to file under
seal Exhibit 65. The court agrees with the class plaintiffs
that the testimony at 317:9-12, 355:17-21, 377:15-19, and
372:4-9 qualifies for a sealed filing but the court finds
that the remaining portions of the testimony do not qualify
for a sealed filing. The court disagrees with the class
plaintiffs about testimony at 336:17-337:17 and
369:14-370:21, and believes this testimony qualifies for a
sealed filing. The court thus orders the class plaintiffs to
file an unredacted version of Exhibit 65 under seal. Also, it
orders the ...