In re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine/Naloxone) Film Products Liability Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE SUBOXONE
(BUPRENORPHINE/NALOXONE)
FILM PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
This Document Applies to All Cases
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:24-md-3092
MDL No. 3092
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 25, 2025, the PLC challenged the confidentiality designations of
1,455 documents. After several meet-and-confer sessions, the PLC withdrew some of
its challenges, and Defendants de-designated some documents, narrowing the dispute
to 276 documents. 	On January 16, 2026, Defendants and the PLC submitted their
respective positions regarding these 276 documents, which fall into two categories
(though they describe these categories somewhat differently): Category A (consisting
of 25 documents), and Category B (251 documents). 	Defendants submitted all 25
documents in Category A and an exemplar document from Category B for in camera
review. 	At the January 21, 2026 status conference, the parties argued their
respective positions on the issue.
LEGAL STANDARD
At this stage of the proceedings, no party seeks to use these documents in
connection with a motion or other litigation document. 	That is, at least for now, no
party seeks to file these discovery documents under seal or otherwise use them to
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 630 Filed: 02/10/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
secure court action on an issue. Accordingly, the protective order in this case provides
the governing standard for resolution of this dispute.
In relevant part, Case Management Order No. 5 (the protective order) defines
“Confidential Information” as “research, design, development, financial, technical,
marketing, planning, regulatory, manufacturing, or commercial information that the
Designating Party has maintained as confidential[.]” (ECF No. 84, ¶ B.10.b., PageID
#858.) It also includes trade secrets, except for certain more sensitive specified trade
secrets that constitute “Highly Confidential Information.” 	(Id., ¶ B.10.c.) When
designating material as confidential, the producing party must act good faith and
bears the burden of establishing that information is properly designated. (Id., ¶ C.1.
& I, PageID #861 & #866.)
DISCUSSION
Based on its in camera review of the documents at issue and the parties’
arguments 	and 	submissions, 	the 	Court 	determines 	that, 	at 	this 	stage 	of 	the
proceedings, the 276 documents are confidential as defined in Case Management
Order No. 5. (See ECF No. 84, § B.10, PageID #858–59.) Paragraph B.10.b. of Case
Management Order No. 5 sweeps broadly. 	While it does not encompass every
document, it reaches the type of information at issue in these documents, which (at
least indirectly) include information falling within the types of documents this
paragraph reaches. 	The 25 documents in Category A reflect Indivior’s analysis and
business practices on various topics, which it maintains as confidential, and those in
Category B reflect internal analysis of whether certain articles contain information
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 630 Filed: 02/10/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
of valid adverse events. However, should any of these documents become decisional,
meaning a document is relevant to a ruling on summary judgment or under Rule 702,
for example, more than a showing under Case Management Order No. 5 will be
required to justify confidentiality.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that these 276 documents, at
this stage of the proceedings, are properly designated as confidential. 	In reaching
this determination, the Court takes no view on whether any of these documents would
meet the standard under Shane Group Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299
(6th Cir. 2016), and the law of this Circuit for sealing.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2026
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 630 Filed: 02/10/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>