The plaintiff, Allergan, sued the three generic drug manufacturers, Apotex, Mylan and Teva. Apotex agreed and Mylan requested a copy of the transaction agreement between Allergan and Apotex. Allergan eventually agreed to establish the settlement agreement, but with the caver that Mylan`s external attorney would not have access to the settlement agreement with Allergan. Mylan disagreed. “Even if the parties reach a settlement after the appeal has been filed, the settlement agreement will not be a record of custody (citing B.H. v. McDonald, 7th cir. 1995) 49 F.3d 300), since the parties file a denunciation provision dismissing the appeal without further detour or judicial proceedings, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 (a) (1) (ii) and the settlement agreement which motivated the determination of the dismissal then have the same status as any other private contract. Id. (quoting Kokkonen v.

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 380-81, 114 p.ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994); Professional Service Network, Inc. vs. American Alliance Holding Co., 238 F.3d 897 (7th Cir.2001); Montgomery v. Aetna Plywood, Inc., 231 F.3d 399 (7th Cir.2000); Carr v. Runyan, 89 F.3d 327, 331 (7 cir.1996); McAlpin v. Lexington 76 Auto Truck Stop, Inc., 229 F.3d 491, 501-04 (6 cir.2000); Langley v. Jackson State University, 14 F.3d 1070, 1072-75 (5th Cir.1994)). Courts “must weigh [a party`s] interest in discovering potentially relevant information against [another party`s] interest in protecting a negotiated transaction with the expectation of confidentiality.” MedImmune, L.L.C. v.

PDL BioPharma, Inc., 2010 WL 3636211 to *2 (N.D. Cal. 2010). In this case, the confidentiality interests of the claimants must yield to the disclosure of the settlement agreement, since it is directly relevant to determining the compensation of damages. Consequently, the Court rejected the applicants` objection to confidentiality. As a general rule, parties who resort to transactions outside the jurisdiction do not wish to publish the terms of the transaction. Jessup v. Luther (7th cir. 2002) 277 F.3d 926, 928. “Normally, settlement agreements, like most arbitral awards and discovery documents, are private documents (citing Union Oil Co. v.

Leavell, (7th Cir.2000) 220 F.3d 568), no judicial documents, and the question of balancing the interest in promoting comparisons while preserving the secrecy and public interest of the documents on which judicial decisions are based therefore does not arise – there is no judicial decision. (e) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be prohibited from requiring the necessary part of a confidentiality agreement, settlement agreement or agreement between the parties, which requires the secrecy of the amount paid upon payment of a claim. [2] The signature is necessary to allow disclosure, not necessarily enforceable. The courts have distinguished between these two requirements. In Stewart v. Preston Pipeline (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th1565, 1583-1585, the court decided that, for disclosure, a settlement agreement may be signed by a party`s lawyer and may nevertheless be disclosed, although the signature of a lawyer is not sufficient to enforce a settlement agreement in accordance with Section 664.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this case, however, the question would be whether the deal could be reached under California. Given the strength of public order that favors confidential transactions, California courts will generally rule in favor of secrecy. . . .