Case 2:23-md-03080-BRM-LDW Document 795 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4 PagelD:
`
`21058
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`IN RE: INSULIN PRICING Case No. 2:23-md-3080 (BRM) (LDW)
`LITIGATION MDL No. 3080
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ORDER TO SEAL
`
`ALL CASES
`
`THIS MATTER having come before the Court by way of Defendant Emisar Pharma
`
`Services LLC’s Motion to Seal portions of a July 15, 2025 discovery dispute letter and certain
`
`exhibits thereto (ECF 675); and having considered the Declaration of Liz Broadway Brown in
`
`support of the Motion to Seal as well as the factors set forth in Local Civil Rule 5.3(¢)(3), the Court
`
`makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
`
`1.
`
`Emisar seeks to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ July 15, 2025 Letter Regarding a Discovery
`Dispute with Emisar and Exhibits 25 and 27 thereto (ECF 792, 792-1, 792-2; public
`redacted versions at ECF 675-3, 675-4, 675-5).
`
`There is “a common law public right of access to judicial proceedings and records,” In re
`Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001), which includes “a presumptive right to
`public access to all material filed in connection with nondiscovery pretrial motions,
`whether these motions are case dispositive or not, but [there is] no such right as to discovery
`motions and their supporting documents.” Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc.,
`998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993).
`
`299
`
`However, “the common law right of access is ‘not absolute’”” and the presumption of access
`
`(133
`
`may be rebutted where the party seeking sealing demonstrates “‘that the interest in secrecy
`outweighs the presumption.”” In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`
`924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-md-03080-BRM-LDW Document 795 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4 PagelD:
`21059
`
`Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d 339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). Specifically, “[t]he movant must
`show ‘that the material is the kind of information that courts will protect and that disclosure
`will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure.’” Id. (quoting
`Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)).
`
`4. Local Civil Rule 5.3(c)(3) requires a party seeking to seal materials filed with the Court to
`file a motion that describes “(a) the nature of the materials or proceedings at issue, (b) the
`legitimate private or public interest which warrants the relief sought, (c) the clearly defined
`and serious injury that would result if the relief sought is not granted, and (d) why a less
`restrictive alternative to the relief sought is not available.”
`
`5. As the information sought to be sealed was submitted in connection with a discovery
`dispute, it is not subject to a presumption of public access.
`
`6. The July 15, 2025 discovery dispute letter and its Exhibits 25 and 27 contain non-public,
`highly competitive, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information, including
`information related to Emisar’s pricing and contracting strategies and Emisar’s contract
`with OptumRx, Inc. See In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 312 F. Supp. 2d 653, 664 (D.N.J.
`2004) (“The presence of trade secrets or other confidential information weighs against
`public access and, accordingly, documents containing such information may be protected
`from disclosure.”).
`
`7. Emisar has a legitimate interest in protecting sensitive, non-public, and proprietary
`business information, disclosure of which would provide Emisar’s competitors an unfair
`competitive advantage in contract negotiations and allow those competitors to infer
`Emisar’s competitive business strategies and undercut Emisar in the marketplace. See
`
`Decoration Design Sols., Inc. v. Amcor Rigid Plastic USA, Inc., 20-cv-2667 (RBK), 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-md-03080-BRM-LDW Document 795 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4 PagelD:
`
`10.
`
`11
`
`21060
`
`WL 6482696, at *9 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2020) (granting motion to seal purchase agreements
`containing “prices, price quotes, and the contents of specific contract provisions, which if
`made public, would affect both Defendant and Plaintiff’s ability to compete for and
`negotiate competitive contracts of similar kind,” finding that parties “have a legitimate
`interest in protecting this private and confidential business information from disclosure
`because they would be at a competitive disadvantage when negotiating future contracts and
`business relationships if the contractual provisions or prices were publicly disclosed”);
`Overton v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, 13-cv-5535 (DEA), 2014 WL 1554718, at *2 (D.N.J.
`Apr. 9, 2014) (“[Clourts have consistently recognized that publicly exposing a party’s
`business information might harm that party’s competitive standing, and that the very
`possibility of such harm is sufficient to warrant the sealing of documents.”).
`
`Accordingly, Emisar has a legitimate interest in protecting this information from disclosure
`and would suffer a clearly defined injury if the information were to be made public.
`
`There exists no countervailing public interest in having access to the information at issue.
`
`There is no less restrictive alternative available than to seal the information. Emisar has
`
`sought to seal only that information that is entitled to protection.
`
`. Emisar has satisfied the requirements for sealing under Local Civil Rule 5.3(c).
`
`WHEREAS, the Court having found that found that legitimate private interests outweigh
`
`any presumption of public access, warranting the relief sought; and no opposition to the motion
`
`having been filed; and for good cause shown;
`
`1.
`
`IT IS on this day, November 6, 2025, ORDERED that:
`Emisar’s Motion to Seal is GRANTED and the information identified in Exhibit 1 to the
`
`Declaration of Liz Broadway Brown (ECF 675-2) is hereby ordered SEALED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-md-03080-BRM-LDW Document 795 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4 PagelD:
`21061
`
`2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF 675.
`
`s/ Leda Dunn Wettre
`Hon. Leda Dunn Wettre
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`