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