Federal Trade Commission v. Abbvie Products LLC
713 F.3d 54
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- FTC investigated the Solvay/AbbVie reverse-payment settlement for antitrust concerns related to AndroGel profits.
- Tulip FA, a confidential Tulip Financial Analysis, was produced by Solvay and attached as the sole exhibit to the FTC’s complaint.
- District court sealed Tulip FA in 2010 based on good cause due to sensitive information.
- FTC and amici requested unsealing for Supreme Court briefing; district court found public interest outweighed Solvay’s confidentiality over time.
- Panel affirmed earlier Watson decision; Supreme Court later granted certiorari in Actavis, limiting the issue to reverse-payment legality.
- Court reviews district court’s protective-order modification for abuse of discretion; standard is good-cause balancing under Chicago Tribune, not de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tulip FA is a judicial record subject to public access | Solvay contends Tulip FA is confidential, not a judicial record | FTC argues Tulip FA attached to complaint is a judicial record | Tulip FA is a judicial record and presumptively public. |
| Appropriate standard to modify protective order—good cause vs extraordinary circumstances | District court should apply extraordinary-circumstances test | Burden on FTC under good-cause balancing; Solvay invited error if misapplied | District court did not abuse discretion; burden on FTC to show good cause; no error in applying Chicago Tribune standard. |
| Whether district court adequately considered reliance on the protective order | Solvay relied on FTC confidentiality promises | Reliance analysis not required given timing and unilateral disclosure by Solvay | District court properly analyzed reliance within the good-cause framework; no abuse. |
| Whether the balance of equities supported unsealing | Confidential data protects Solvay’s pricing and rebates | Public interest in understanding antitrust issues and judicial process outweighs confidentiality | Public interest outweighed Solvay’s confidentiality; unsealing appropriate. |
| Whether the district court’s factual findings about reduced risk of competitive injury were clearly erroneous | Tulip FA still sensitive and could injure Solvay | Time has reduced risk; updated product versions alter cost structure | No clear error; findings plausible and supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (balancing test for public access to judicial records; discovery materials generally exempt from public access)
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 821 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1987) (protective-order modification and disclosure considerations; abuse of discretion standards)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (access decisions rests in discretion of trial court; abuse of discretion review standard)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (continuum approach to public-access determinations; importance of judicial function)