Aria Diagnostics, Inc v. Sequenom, Inc
Filing
110
ORDER ON APPLICATION TO SEAL 104 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/13/2012)
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?