Aria Diagnostics, Inc v. Sequenom, Inc

Filing 110

ORDER ON APPLICATION TO SEAL 104 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ARIA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 No. C 11-06391 SI Plaintiff, ORDER ON APPLICATION TO SEAL v. SEQUENOM, INC., 12 Defendant. / 13 14 SEQUENOM, INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, 15 16 17 v. ARIA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Counterclaim Defendant, 18 19 and 20 ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED, 21 Nominal Counterclaim Defendant 22 _______________________________________/ 23 Currently before the Court is defendant and counterclaimant Sequenom’s application to seal 24 portions of its reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction and related declarations. 25 Docket No. 104. The application is supported by a declaration from Sequenom (Declaration Michael 26 Malecek) and a declaration from plaintiff and counterclaim defendant Ariosa (Declaration of Jason 27 Sullivan). 28 1 The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the application to file portions of Sequenom’s 2 reply brief under seal. Specifically, the Court finds good cause at this juncture to allow Sequenom to 3 file under seal the following portions of its reply: (1) the text at page 12, lines 6-8, 21, 25-27; (2) the text 4 at page 13, lines 3-4; (3) the text at page 14, lines 12-14; and (4) the text at page 15, lines 9-10. The 5 remainder of the reply brief shall be publicly filed. 6 The Court also GRANTS Sequenom’s application to file portions of the Supplemental 7 Declaration of William Welch in support of its reply under seal. Specifically, the Court finds good 8 cause at this juncture to allow Sequenom to file the following information included in or attached to the 9 declaration under seal: United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 1. Page 2: The highlighted text at lines 20-25. 11 2. Page 3: The highlighted text at lines 7-19. 12 3. Page 4: The highlighted text at lines 3-4, 9-11. 13 4. Page 5: The highlighted text at lines 1-4, 6-10 and 20-24. 14 5. Page 6: The highlighted text at lines 5, and 11-15. 15 The Court also GRANTS Sequenom's application to file portions of the Supplemental 16 Declaration of Mark I. Evans in support of its reply under seal. Specifically, the Court finds good cause 17 at this juncture to allow Sequenom to file the following information included in or attached to the 18 declaration under seal: 19 1. Page 21: The highlighted text at line 27. 20 2. Page 22: The highlighted text at lines 1-16. 21 3. Exhibits 17 and 18. 22 The Court also GRANTS Sequenom’s application to file portions of the Declaration of Peter 23 Root in support of its reply under seal. Specifically, the Court finds good cause at this juncture to allow 24 Sequenom to file the following information included in or attached to the declaration under seal: 25 1. Root Decl., Ex. 1 (Deposition of Dr. John R. Stuelpnagel) 26 a. The testimony on page 74, lines 2-25. 27 b. The testimony on page 75, lines 2-9. 28 c. The testimony on page 93, lines 2-25. 2 d. The testimony on page 102, lines 9-22. 2 e. The testimony on page 138, lines 3-20. 3 f. The testimony on page 176, lines 3-25. 4 g. The testimony on page 177, lines 2-25. 5 h. The testimony on page 178, lines 2-25. 6 i. The testimony on page 181, lines 3-25. 7 j. The testimony on page 182, lines 2-11. 8 k. The testimony on page 193, lines 2-25. 9 l. The testimony on page 194, lines 2-17. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 m. The testimony on page 214, lines 2-25. 11 2. Exhibits 14-19 and 21-22. 12 Sequenom shall e-file under seal (pursuant to General Order No. 62), unredacted copies of the 13 documents it has been given leave to file under seal and e-file in the public docket redacted copies of 14 the same. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: June 13, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?