9 Cited authorities

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (1978) Cited 6,014 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that "business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" can constitute a sufficient reason to preserve records under seal
Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg
23 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 1,126 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Settlement Agreement never filed with, interpreted by, or enforced in the district court is not a judicial record accessible under the right of access doctrine
In re Cendant Corp.
260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 579 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "right of access should be applied ... with particular strictness" due to "the peculiar posture of class actions whereby some members of the public are also parties to the class action"
Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen
733 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1984) Cited 517 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the public has a right of access to civil proceedings
Leucadia, v. Applied Extrusion Technologies
998 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1993) Cited 381 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that common law right of access applies to all pretrial motions of a nondiscovery nature and the material filed in connection therewith
Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.
851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988) Cited 286 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, "absent allegations of fraud or other extraordinary circumstances," documents restored to owner after case's completion are no longer "judicial records" subject to public inspection
Mylan Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
723 F.3d 413 (3d Cir. 2013) Cited 110 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that in a contract interpretation action, summary judgment is appropriate only where the contract's language is unambiguous—i.e., "subject to only one reasonable interpretation."
In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation
312 F. Supp. 2d 653 (D.N.J. 2004) Cited 70 times
Finding that Magistrate properly maintained information designated as trade secrets under seal where the moving party presented detailed affidavits and declarations setting forth the nature of their trade secrets and the specific harm that would be suffered upon disclosure
Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations
Fed. R. Evid. 408 Cited 4,260 times 44 Legal Analyses
Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)

Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that "business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" can constitute a sufficient reason to preserve records under seal

Holding that a Settlement Agreement never filed with, interpreted by, or enforced in the district court is not a judicial record accessible under the right of access doctrine

Holding that the "right of access should be applied ... with particular strictness" due to "the peculiar posture of class actions whereby some members of the public are also parties to the class action"

Holding that the public has a right of access to civil proceedings

Holding that common law right of access applies to all pretrial motions of a nondiscovery nature and the material filed in connection therewith

Holding that, "absent allegations of fraud or other extraordinary circumstances," documents restored to owner after case's completion are no longer "judicial records" subject to public inspection

Holding that in a contract interpretation action, summary judgment is appropriate only where the contract's language is unambiguous—i.e., "subject to only one reasonable interpretation."

Finding that Magistrate properly maintained information designated as trade secrets under seal where the moving party presented detailed affidavits and declarations setting forth the nature of their trade secrets and the specific harm that would be suffered upon disclosure

Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)