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

Filing 237

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS TO SEAL #221 #231 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/8/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13
14

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’
MOTIONS TO SEAL

Plaintiffs,

11
12

No. C 12-00865 SI

VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,

v.
SEQUENOM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

/

15
On July 16, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to strike portions of Dr. Metzker’s expert report and
16
for the exclusion of evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c). Docket No. 221-3. Along
17
with the motion, plaintiffs filed a motion to seal Exhibit 5 to the declaration of Michele A. Gauger in
18
support of the motion. Docket No. 221. Subsequently, Sequenom filed the declaration of K. Nicole
19
Buck in support of sealing Exhibit 5. Docket No. 234. On July 30, 2014, Sequenom filed its opposition
20
to plaintiffs’ motion. Docket No. 232. Along with the opposition, Sequenom filed a motion to seal
21
Exhibits B, H, and J to the declaration of Stephen Holmes in support of the opposition. Docket No. 231.
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 plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the expert report and for the

6

exclusion of evidence is a non-dispositive motion, the “good cause” standard applies.
To make the lower showing of good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized

8

showing” that “‘specific prejudice or harm’” will result if the information is disclosed. Kamakana, 447

9

F.3d at 1180, 1186; accord Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of

11

articulated reasoning” are insufficient to establish good cause. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

12

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

13
14

I.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal

15

Plaintiffs move to seal portions of exhibit 5 to the Gauger declaration. Docket No. 221. In the

16

supporting declaration, Sequenom explains that Exhibit 5 is a copy of Sequenom’s Response and

17

Objections to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories. Docket No. 234, Buck Decl. ¶ 4. Sequenom states

18

that this document contains non-public, confidential, and competitively useful business information

19

regarding the royalty rates for several license agreements related to the sale of Sequenom’s MaterniT21

20

accused product. Id. ¶ 5. Sequenom argues that the public disclosure of this information poses a

21

substantial risk of economic harm to Sequenom by potentially having a negative impact on the

22

relationships between Sequenom and its licensors and having a negative impact on Sequenom’s future

23

negotiations with third parties regarding intellectual property. Id. After reviewing the supporting

24

declaration and the exhibit, the Court concludes that Sequenom has shown good cause to seal Exhibit

25

5 to the Gauger declaration.

26

In addition, Sequenom’s request to seal the exhibit is narrowly tailored because it seeks to redact

27

only the sealable information from the exhibit. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to

28

seal.
2

1
2

II.

Sequenom’s Motion to Seal
Sequenom moves to seal Exhibits B, H, and J to the Holmes declaration. Docket No. 231. In

4

the supporting declaration, Sequenom explains that Exhibit B is a chart summarizing the comparison

5

between plaintiffs’ infringement contentions and the expert report of George Weinstock. Docket No.

6

231, Buck Decl. ¶ 4.

7

competitively useful technical information related to Sequenom’s accused product, and the disclosure

8

of this information could cause Sequenom to suffer economic harm. Id. ¶ 5. Sequenom explains that

9

Exhibit H is a copy of Exhibit 125 to the deposition of Dr. Dennis Lo. Id. ¶ 6. Sequenom argues that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

Exhibit H contains non-public, proprietary, and competitively useful technical information related to

11

Sequenom’s business, and Exhibit H also contains confidential and proprietary information covered by

12

a common interest privilege agreement between Sequenom and the Chinese University of Hong Kong

13

(“CUHK”). Sequenom explains that Exhibit J is a copy of excerpts from the October 19, 2012

14

deposition of Dr. Dennis Lo. Id. ¶ 8. Sequenom argues that Exhibit J contains non-public and

15

confidential information regarding the relationship between Sequenom and CUHK and the relationship

16

between Sequenom and Dr. Lo. Id. ¶ 9. Sequenom argues that the public disclosure of the information

17

in Exhibits H and J could cause it economic harm by having a negative impact on Sequenom’s

18

relationship with CUHK and Sequenom’s relationship with Dr. Lo, and it could harm Sequenom’s future

19

negotiations with third parties regarding intellectual property. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. After reviewing the

20

supporting declaration and the exhibits, the Court concludes that Sequenom has shown good cause to

21

seal Exhibits B, H, and J to the Holmes declaration. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Sequenom’s

22

motion to seal. This order resolves Docket Nos. 221, 231.

Sequenom argues that Exhibit B contains non-public, proprietary, and

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
Dated: August 8, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3