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)

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