Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Sequenom, Inc. et al

Filing 110

ORDER DENYNG MOTION TO SEAL re #101 . If Sequenom wishes to refile a motion to seal Exhibit 10, it may do so by no later than August 5, 2013. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/29/2013) Modified on 7/29/2013 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Case No. C 12-00865 SI
Related Cases: 11-06931, 12-00132, 12-05501

VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

v.

11

SEQUENOM, INC., et al.,

12

Defendants.

/

13
14

Currently before the Court is Verinata’s administrative motion to seal Exhibit 10 of Michele A.

15

Gauger’s Declaration in Support of Verinata and Stanford’s Reply Claim Construction Brief. Exhibit

16

10, which is Sequenom’s First Supplemental Response and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No.

17

2, was designated confidential by Sequenom.

18

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), within 7 days the party designating the document as

19

confidential must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated information

20

is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the

21

designation of confidentiality. On July 24, 2013, Sequenom filed a declaration requesting that Exhibit

22

10 be sealed because it “contains non-public, confidential, proprietary, and competitively useful

23

business information.”

24

“A stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as

25

sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). With the

26

exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts begin their sealing

27

analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d

28

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a nondispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient

1

for the Court to file the documents under seal. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

2

1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). To show good cause, the moving party

3

must still make a “particularized showing” that “specific harm or prejudice will result if the information

4

is disclosed.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., Case No.

5

11–CV–01846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 4120541, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012). “Simply mentioning

6

a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the

7

documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Neither do “[b]road allegations

8

of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211.
The Court finds that Sequenom has not made a showing of good cause to seal Exhibit 10. It has

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

merely asserted general categories of privilege that the document contains. Additionally, the harm

11

asserted from disclosure, “substantial economic and competitive harm,” is merely a general harm, and

12

there is no articulated reasoning why the harm will result from disclosure. Moreover, sealing the entire

13

document is not narrowly tailored, as it appears that at least a portion of the document contains public

14

information.

15

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Verinata’s administration motion to seal the document.

16

This denial is without prejudice. If Sequenom wishes to refile a motion to seal Exhibit 10, it may do

17

so by no later than August 5, 2013, in a format which includes a “particularized showing” that

18

“specific harm or prejudice will result if the information is disclosed.” Such a filing would be

19

considered by the Court before a final decision. If they do not do so, the document will be made part

20

of the public record. This resolves Docket No. 101.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

Dated: July 29, 2013

25
26
27
28
2