Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. v. BTL Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 55 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; 59 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-05473-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

BTL INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 59

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. (“Zeltiq”) moves to file under seal its Motion for Partial

13

Summary Judgment (“MSJ,” dkt. 55), its Reply in support of its MSJ (dkt. 59), and declaration

14

exhibits submitted in support of its MSJ and Reply. Zeltiq‟s only basis for filing under seal is that

15

Defendants designated certain documents as confidential. Zeltiq therefore moved to file under

16

seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), and Defendants filed declarations in response pursuant

17

to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).

18

With respect to the MSJ, Zeltiq sought to file under seal Exhibits 1, 4−20, and 27 to the

19

supporting declaration of Thomas Hanrahan. Defendants have no objection to Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 7,

20

8, 10−20, and 27 being filed in the public record. 1st Faucette Decl. (dkt. 57) ¶ 2. Zeltiq‟s sealing

21

motion is therefore DENIED as to those exhibits. Defendants support sealing two lines of Exhibit

22

6, consisting of excerpts of a deposition transcript, on the basis that they contain non-public

23

pricing information. Id. ¶ 3. The Court has reviewed Exhibit 6 and finds that only one line—page

24

35, line 16—contains pricing information. (Line 15 consists of a generic question by Zeltiq‟s

25

attorney that is not subject to sealing.) Defendants also support sealing six lines of text following

26

the number “4” on the first page of Exhibit 9, also to protect non-public pricing information. Id.

27

¶ 4. The Court has reviewed that exhibit and finds Defendants‟ explanation sufficient. Zeltiq‟s

28

sealing motion is therefore GRANTED as to page 35, line 16 of Exhibit 6 and the six lines of text

1

following the number “4” on the first page of Exhibit 9, and DENIED as to the remainder of those

2

exhibits. Defendants‟ declaration does not discuss the MSJ itself. The Court has reviewed the

3

MSJ and found no reference to the confidential pricing information from Exhibits 6 and 9.

4

Zeltiq‟s sealing motion is therefore DENIED as to the MSJ itself. Zeltiq is instructed to file

5

unredacted versions of the MSJ and Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10−20, and 27, and redacted

6

versions of Exhibits 6 and 9, no later than March 9, 2015. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(2), (3).

7

With respect to the Reply, Zeltiq sought to seal portions of the Reply itself, as well as

8

Exhibits 29−37 and 49−46 to the Supplemental Declaration of Thomas Hanrahan. Defendants do

9

not object to Exhibits 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 39, 40−42, 44, and 46 being filed in the public record. 2d
Faucette Decl. (dkt. 61) ¶ 2. Defendants also do not appear to object to Exhibit 36 being filed in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the public record. See id. ¶ 5 (“Zeltiq filed Exhibit 36 under seal, but Defendants did not designate

12

it as „Confidential.‟”). Zeltiq‟s sealing motion is therefore DENIED as to those exhibits. Exhibits

13

30, 33, and 37 contain non-public financial figures and telephone access information. See id. ¶¶ 3,

14

4, 6. Zeltiq‟s sealing motion is GRANTED as to those exhibits. Exhibit 45 consists of excerpts of

15

the same deposition transcript as Exhibit 6. For the same reasons applicable to Exhibit 6, Zeltiq‟s

16

sealing motion is GRANTED as to page 35, line 16, and DENIED as to the remainder of Exhibit

17

45. Defendants‟ declaration does not discuss the Reply itself. The Court has reviewed the Reply

18

and found no reference to the confidential financial data or telephone access information from the

19

sealed exhibits. Zeltiq‟s sealing motion is therefore DENIED as to the Reply itself. Zeltiq is

20

instructed to file unredacted versions of the Reply and Exhibits 29, 31, 32, 34−36, 39, 40−42,

21

44, and 46, and a redacted version of Exhibit 45, no later than March 9, 2015. See Civ. L.R.

22

79-5(f)(2), (3).

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

27
28
2