Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al
Filing
109
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL #104 . This denial is without prejudice to Ariosa refiling its declaration, no later than January 20, 2014. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/13/2014) Modified on 1/14/2014 (ysS, COURT STAFF).
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 12-05501 SI
VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
SEAL
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/
16
17
On December 13, 2013, defendants Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of
18
America Holdings (collectively “Ariosa”) filed a second motion to stay the action pending inter partes
19
review. Docket No. 103. On December 27, 2013, plaintiffs Verinata Health, Inc. and the Board of
20
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (collectively “Verinata”) filed an opposition. Docket
21
No. 105. By the present motion, Verinata moves to file under seal an exhibit filed in support of its
22
opposition to Ariosa’s motion to stay. Docket No. 104. Ariosa has filed a declaration in support of
23
sealing the exhibit. Docket No. 106, Naini Decl.
24
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts
25
begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
26
Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in
27
connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling
28
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”
1
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations
2
and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive
3
motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at
4
1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly
5
tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local
6
Rule 79-5(b). Because Ariosa’s motion to stay is a non-dispositive motion, the “good cause” standard
7
applies. See SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that a motion
8
to stay a civil proceeding where the effect is not the denial of relief is a non-dispositive motion).
Ariosa argues that Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Derek Walter in support of Verinata’s
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
9
opposition should be filed under seal.1 Docket No. 106, Naini Decl. ¶ 2. To make the lower showing
11
of good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized showing” that “‘specific prejudice or
12
harm’” will result if the information is disclosed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186; accord Phillips
13
ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad
14
allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” are insufficient to
15
establish good cause. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
16
In its supporting declaration, Ariosa states that the document contains confidential technical
17
information regarding the accused product and confidential corporate information related to the
18
awareness of certain patents by Ariosa officers, which could harm Ariosa if publicly disclosed. Ariosa’s
19
broad allegations of harm are insufficient to establish good cause. See Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476.
20
Ariosa also states that the document cites a number of technical documents related to the accused
21
product that were designated as highly confidential pursuant to the terms of the protective order in this
22
case. Docket No. 106, Naini Decl. ¶ 1. But, good cause “cannot be established simply by showing that
23
the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered
24
to be confidential.” Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15965, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7,
25
2011); see Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Moreover, Ariosa fails to explain how the mere citation to a
26
27
28
1
Exhibit 9 is Ariosa’s First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Verinata’s First Set of
Interrogatories. Docket No. 104-3.
2
1
document that is confidential would need to be filed under seal. Accordingly, Ariosa has failed to
2
provide good cause for filing the exhibit under seal.
3
In addition, it does not appear that Ariosa’s request to seal the exhibit is narrowly tailored. Even
4
assuming that the exhibit contains some sealable confidential information, that would only be good
5
cause to seal certain portions of the exhibit, not the entire document.
6
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Verinata’s motion to seal. Docket No. 133. This denial is
7
without prejudice to Ariosa refiling its declaration, no later than January 20, 2014, in a format which
8
is narrowly tailored and demonstrates “good cause” for sealing the exhibit.
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
Dated: January 13, 2014
12
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
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?