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
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?