Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 48

AMENDED ORDER re 47 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on December 13, 2012. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CEPHEID, 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C-12-4411 EMC Plaintiff, v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. and F. HOFFMAND-LA ROCHE LTD., AMENDED ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket Nos. 31, 39, 45) Defendants. ___________________________________/ 14 15 16 Currently pending before this Court is Defendant Roche Molecular System’s (“RMS”) 17 motion to stay Counts I and II of the Complaint, and to dismiss Counts III and IV for lack of subject 18 matter jurisdiction. In conjunction with its motion, Defendant RMS submitted a motion to file 19 portions of its brief and certain supporting exhibits under seal pursuant to Local Rule 75-9. Docket 20 Nos. 31. The basis for this request is twofold. 21 First, the motion to stay is based on currently pending arbitration proceedings, and the 22 arbitration tribunal in those proceedings has issued guidance indicating that materials submitted in 23 the course of arbitration is confidential and should be disclosed to a court or government authority 24 only where required. While the arbitral tribunal has encouraged the parties to stipulate to a 25 confidentiality agreement governing those proceedings, it does not appear that this has yet occurred. 26 Second, the parties in this case were at one point parties to a licensing agreement that 27 28 provided that the terms of such agreement should be confidential. 1 Accordingly, Defendant RMS seeks to file under seal exhibits that are confidential within the 2 scope of the guidance of the arbitral tribunal or the confidentiality agreement of the licensing 3 agreement. It further seeks to redact such confidential information from the publically filed version 4 of its motion. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant RMS’s motion, and further requests that two 5 additional sections of Defendant’s motion be filed under seal. Docket No. 37. Defendant RMS does 6 not oppose redacting the additional sections of the motion. Id. 7 Plaintiff has filed a similar motion to file portions of its response and its supporting exhibits 8 under seal. Docket No. 39. Defendant RMS has filed a second motion to file portions of its reply 9 under seal. Docket No. 45. Documents may be filed under seal only by order of the Court. Local Rule 79-5. “A sealing 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof is 12 privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Id. 13 Further, requests to file documents under seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of” 14 materials sealable under the above standard. Id. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, 15 this Court determines that their requests to file the above-discussed materials under seal appear to 16 comply with the standard set forth in Local Rule 79-5. 17 Accordingly, Defendant’s first motion to file under seal (Docket No. 31) is GRANTED with 18 the modifications requested by Plaintiff (Docket No. 37). Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal 19 (Docket No. 39), and Defendant’s second motion to file under seal (Docket No. 45) are likewise 20 GRANTED. Counsel are directed to electronically file the above referenced documents under seal 21 pursuant to General Order 62 by noon Pacific Time on December 14, 2012.. Counsel may obtain 22 more information about electronically filing documents under seal via the Court website 23 (www.cand.uscourts.gov) and also the Court's ECF website 24 (https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/index.html). 25 As it appears that the statements of the arbitral tribunal on confidentiality were provided only 26 as interim guidance until such a time as the parties could reach stipulations regarding the 27 confidentiality of those proceedings, the parties are ORDERED to provide this Court with an update 28 when such stipulations are reached. This Court will consider at that time whether a modification of 2 1 this order allowing the parties to file these documents under seal is appropriate. Furthermore, 2 because the directive of the interim guidance is general, the Court reserves the authority to 3 reexamine upon motion or sua sponte the order herein. 4 5 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 31, 39 & 45. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: December 13, 2012 9 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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?