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

Filing 184

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL 177 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/14/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 No. C 12-00865 SI VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al., ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiffs, v. SEQUENOM, INC., et al., Defendants. / 16 On May 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for leave to supplement the 17 complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). Docket No. 178. On May 7, 2014, plaintiffs 18 also filed a motion to file under seal portions of their reply and certain exhibits filed in support of the 19 reply. Docket No. 177. On May 12, 2014, defendants filed the declaration of Michael Malecek in 20 support of sealing portions of plaintiffs’ reply and Exhibits 7, 10-12, and 14-16 to the Declaration of 21 Derek Walter in support of plaintiffs’ reply. Docket No. 183, Malecek Decl. 22 With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts 23 begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 24 Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in 25 connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling 26 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 27 policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” 28 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations 1 and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive 2 motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 3 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly 4 tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. N.D. Cal. 5 Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). Because a motion for leave to file an amended complaint is a non-dispositive 6 motion, the “good cause” standard applies. See Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-003305-LHK, 7 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177058, at *66-67 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012). In the supporting declaration, defendants seek to seal Exhibits 7, 10-12, and 14-16 to the Walter 9 Declaration and withdraw their confidentiality designations with respect to Exhibit 13. Docket No. 183, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 8 Malecek Decl. ¶ 14. Defendants argue that the sealable exhibits contain non-public, confidential, and 11 in some cases proprietary and competitively useful information. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20. 12 Defendants argue that the public disclosure of this information may negatively impact defendants’ 13 licensing discussions with third parties and may harm their relationship with non-parties the Chinese 14 University of Hong Kong, Dr. Yuk-Ming Dennis Lo, and Qiagen. Id. After reviewing the declaration, 15 the Court concludes that defendants have shown good cause for sealing Exhibits 7, 10-12, and 14-16 16 to the Declaration of Derek Walter and the portions of the reply that refer to these exhibits. 17 In addition, defendants’ request to seal Exhibits 7, 10-12, and 14-16 is narrowly tailored because 18 it seeks to redact only the sealable information from the exhibits. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN 19 PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 177. Specifically, the Court grants 20 plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibits 7, 10-12, and 14-16 to the Declaration of Derek Walter and the 21 portions of the reply that refer to these exhibits. The Court denies plaintiffs’ motion to seal exhibit 13 22 and the portions of the reply that refer to this exhibit. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 14, 2014 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?