Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al

Filing 127

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL #120 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

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 12-05501 SI VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al., ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiffs, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Defendant. / 16 17 On March 18, 2014, defendant Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (“Ariosa”) filed a motion for leave to 18 amend its invalidity contentions. Docket No. 117. On April 1, 2014, plaintiffs Verinata Health, Inc. 19 and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (collectively “Verinata”) filed an 20 opposition. Docket No. 121. On April 1, 2014, Verinata also filed a motion to file under seal certain 21 exhibits filed in support of its opposition. Docket No. 120. On April 7, 2014, Ariosa filed the 22 declaration of Lauren N. Drake in support of sealing portions of Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 to Verinata’s 23 Opposition. Docket No. 124, Drake 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 a motion to amend infringement or invalidity contentions is a non-dispositive 7 motion, the “good cause” standard applies. See, e.g., EON Corp IP Holding LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, 8 L.P., No. C-12-01011 JST (EDL), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33658, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014); Asus 9 Computer Int’l v. Round Rock Research, LLC, No. 12-cv-02099 JST (NC), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 13901, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2014). 11 Ariosa argues that Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 to the Declaration of Derek Walter in support of 12 Verinata’s opposition should be filed under seal. Docket No. 124, Drake Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 6. To make the 13 lower showing of good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized showing” that “‘specific 14 prejudice or harm’” will result if the information is disclosed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1186; 15 accord Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” are 17 insufficient to establish good cause. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 18 1992). 19 Specifically, Ariosa makes two separate arguments for why portions of Exhibits 1, 3, and 4 20 should be filed under seal. As to the first contention, Ariosa argues that the portions of the exhibits 21 should be filed under seal because they contain corporate information relating to the awareness of 22 certain patents by certain Ariosa officers. Docket No. 124, Drake Decl. ¶¶ 2-7. Ariosa explains that 23 the disclosure of this information would cause it harm because it provides insight into the manner in 24 which Ariosa and its officers obtain information regarding third party intellectual property. Id. As to 25 the second contention, Ariosa argues that the portions of the exhibits should be filed under seal because 26 they contain highly sensitive technical information regarding the accused product. Id. ¶¶ 4-7. Ariosa 27 explains that disclosure of this information would cause it harm because it could reveal to its 28 competitors how the accused product operates and how it does not operate. Id. After reviewing the 2 1 declaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa has shown good cause for sealing these portions of the 2 exhibits. 3 In addition, Ariosa’s request is narrowly tailored because it seeks to redact only the sealable 4 information from the exhibits. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Verinata’s motion to seal. Docket No. 5 120. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: April 17, 2014 9 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 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?