Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. et al v. Celera Corporporation et al

Filing 247

ORDER RE 230 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND, L.P.,
BIOTECHNOLOGY VALUE FUND II,
L.P., INVESTMENT 10, L.L.C., BVF
INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.; BVF INC., and
BVF X, LLC,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

No. C 13-03248 WHA

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(DKT. NO. 230)

v.
CELERA CORPORATION, CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC,
KATHY ORDOÑEZ, RICHARD H.
AYERS, WILLIAM G. GREEN, PETER
BARTON HUTT, GAIL M. NAUGHTON,
WAYNE I. ROE, and BENNETT M.
SHAPIRO,
Defendants.
/

Defendants move to seal the entirety of Exhibit F to the Declaration of Brandon Wisoff in

20

support of their motion to exclude the opinions of plaintiff’s damages expert Adam Werner.

21

Exhibit F is the expert report of Carl Saba. This includes documents that non-party Merck had

22

marked confidential. Defendants filed this administrative motion pursuant to paragraph 12.3 of

23

the amended stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 166).

24

Merck asserts that paragraphs 21–22 of the Saba Report should be filed under seal

25

because they contain highly confidential and proprietary business information whose public

26

disclosure would be adverse to Merck. Merck does not state how or why disclosure of this

27

information would be adverse to Merck (Dkt. No. 237).

28

Merck’s declaration does not address the “compelling reasons” standard that applies to
documents filed under seal. Under Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

1

1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006), the court held that a “strong presumption of access to judicial records

2

applies fully to dispositive pleadings” and “‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial

3

records attached to a dispositive motion.” Moreover, the burden of meeting the “compelling

4

reasons” standard falls squarely on the shoulders of the “party seeking to seal a judicial record.”

5

Id. at 1179.

6

Since Merck’s declaration did not address the “compelling reasons” standard set forth in

7

Kamakana, it has not met its burden of showing why the proffered documents must be sealed.

8

As such, the motion is DENIED.

2014, a renewed declaration that squarely addresses the “compelling reasons” standard set forth

11
For the Northern District of California

This denial is without prejudice to Merck filing, by NOON ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 29,

10

United States District Court

9

by the Ninth Circuit in Kamakana.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: December 23, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2