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
Defendants move to redact certain limited portions of the transcript of the
hearing held on December 2, 2025. 	During that hearing, the discussion of certain
discovery issues referenced various documents produced under the protective order
in this case. 	(See Case Management Order No. 5, ECF No. 84.) 	Notwithstanding
production pursuant to the protective order, filing a document under seal or with
redactions must still comply with the legal requirements for restricting public access
to material that is presumptively a public record. 	That is, production under an
umbrella protective order facilitates discovery conducted under the auspices of the
Court, but largely out of view of the public, but production under a protective order,
without more, does not suffice to justify sealing.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court’s decision to seal court records is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. Klingenberg v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Co., 658 F. App’x 202, 207 (6th
Cir. 2016) (citing Shane Grp. Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th
Cir. 2016)). 	But in the sealing context, “the district court’s decision is not accorded
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 596 Filed: 01/07/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
the deference that standard normally brings.” 	Id. 	To avoid abusing its discretion,
the Sixth Circuit requires a district court faced with a motion to seal to “set forth
specific findings and conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” 	Shane
Grp., 825 F.3d at 306 (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d
1165, 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)).
The Court bears an independent obligation to explain the basis for sealing
court records, and that obligation exists regardless of any agreement or disagreement
among the parties about sealing the records. 	See Rudd Equip. Co. v. John Deere
Constr. & Forestry Co., 834 F.3d 589, 595 (6th Cir. 2016). Taking up this independent
obligation, district courts must weigh, on the one hand, the interest of the parties to
keep information confidential, and, on the other, the public’s strong interest in
“obtaining the information contained in the court record.” 	Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at
305 (citation and quotation omitted).
“The courts have long recognized . . . ‘a strong presumption in favor of
openness’ to court records.” 	Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305 (quoting Brown &
Williamson, 701 F.2d at 1179). 	Overcoming this burden is “a heavy one: 	‘Only the
most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.’” Id. (quoting
In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983)). The greater the
public interest, the greater the burden to justify seal. See id. In civil litigation, the
most common categories of information that meet this standard include “trade
secrets, information covered by a recognized privilege (such 	as attorney-client
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 596 Filed: 01/07/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
privilege), and information required by statute to remain in confidence (such as the
name of a minor victim of a sexual assault).” Id. at 308.
To demonstrate that sealing is necessary, the party seeking confidentiality
must “analyze, in detail, document by document, the propriety of secrecy, providing
reasons and legal citations” that support seal. Id. at 305–06 (citation and quotation
omitted). 	Therefore, it is incumbent on the Court to review each document and the
legal rationales that the parties offer, and to “set forth specific findings and
conclusions ‘which justify nondisclosure to the public.’” Id. at 306 (quoting Brown &
Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176).
DISCUSSION
With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the portions of the transcript
at issue and the parties’ respective views on the redactions that Defendants seek.
The Court ORDERS the following portions of the transcript to be redacted as
reflected on Exhibit B to Defendants’ motion:
Page 16:2 (from the sentence beginning “The”)–6;
Page 43:14–17;
Pages 43:25–44:5;
Pages 44:7–13; and
Pages 44:20–45:5.
With respect to any argument about proper substantiation of these redactions,
the Court finds that the basis for each requested redaction, on the limited record
presented, was self-evident such that it is able to make the findings that the Sixth
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 596 Filed: 01/07/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
Circuit requires. 	These requested redactions involve confidential business records,
trade secrets, and other matters that the companies typically take efforts to protect
against public disclosure. 	Going forward, the basis for requested redactions will
likely not be apparent without proper citation or other explanation as discovery
proceeds and the complexity of the case and the issues requiring resolution advance.
The 	Court 	finds 	that 	the 	following 	requested redactions 	refer to 	public
information such that no redaction is necessary or appropriate:
Page 15:25;
Page 16:1–2 (through the end of the sentence);
Page 16:14–15.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2026
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:24-md-03092-JPC Doc #: 596 Filed: 01/07/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>