Verinata Health, Inc. et al v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc et al
Filing
564
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL #394 #397 #398 #399 #403 #405 #421 #423 #425 #427 #429 #432 #435 #436 #447 #449 #452 #453 #454 #457 #500 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/5/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 12-cv-05501-SI
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL
v.
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC, et al.,
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 394, 397, 398, 399, 403, 405,
421, 423, 425, 427, 429, 432, 435, 436, 447,
449, 452, 453, 454, 457, 471
12
13
14
In support of their motions for summary judgment, motions to strike, and motions to
preclude testimony, the parties submitted numerous administrative motions to file certain
15
materials under seal. With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally
16
kept secret,” courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.”
17
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file
18
documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, or a motion “more than tangentially
19
related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101
20
(9th Cir. 2016), the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling reasons
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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.”
Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted). Generally, however, when a party seeks to seal documents
attached to a non-dispositive motion only tangentially related to the merits of a case, a showing of
“good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; Ctr. for
Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
1
The Court has reviewed each of the administrative motions and finds that the parties have
2
articulated compelling reasons to seal the majority of the requested materials. However, in some
3
instances, one party has sought to seal certain materials solely because they were designated as
4
confidential by the other party, but the other party’s supporting declaration provides that the
5
material need not be sealed. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 474 ¶¶ 5, 6. To this extent, the motions to seal are
6
DENIED. The remainder of the motions are GRANTED. The Court further notes that defendant
7
has sought to seal additional portions of materials submitted by plaintiffs. See Dkt. Nos. 460, 471.
8
These requests are GRANTED.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?