Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL 26 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 6/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

13
14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. C 14-01921 SI

ILLUMINA, INC.,

v.
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
Defendant.

/

15
On June 11, 2014, defendant Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (“Ariosa”) filed a first amended answer
16
and counterclaims. Docket No. 26-3. On June 11, 2014, Ariosa also filed a motion to seal portions of
17
its first amended answer and counterclaims. Docket No. 26. On June 16, 2014, Illumina filed the
18
declaration of Derek C. Walter in support of sealing portions of the first amended answer and
19
counterclaims. Docket No. 28.
20
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts
21
begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
22
Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in
23
connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling
24
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
25
policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”
26
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations
27
and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive
28

1

motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at

2

1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly

3

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. N.D. Cal.

4

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).
“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling

6

reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but this Court and other courts have held that the

7

compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit.” In re Google

8

Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138910, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. Sept.

9

25, 2013) (collecting cases). Therefore, Illumina bears the burden of “articulating compelling reasons

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

11

favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447

12

F.3d at 1178-79.

13

In the supporting declaration, Illumina seeks to seal paragraph 19, lines 19-22, lines 24-27;

14

paragraph 20; paragraph 21, lines 12-16; paragraph 25, lines 19-22; paragraph 26; paragraph 27, lines

15

10-12; paragraph 35, lines 8-9; paragraph 49, lines 14-17; and paragraph 53, lines 24-25. Docket No.

16

28, Walter Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Illumina explains that these portions of the first amended answer and

17

counterclaims relate to an agreement between Ariosa and Illumina and include specifics regarding the

18

terms of the agreement. Id. ¶ 1. The agreement contains a confidentiality provision stating that the

19

agreement, including its terms and conditions, is confidential. Id. ¶ 2; Docket No. 26-1, Gindler Decl.

20

¶ 3. Illumina explains that portions of the first amended answer and counterclaims at issue disclose

21

information regarding (1) the details of the structure of the agreement; (2) intellectual property and

22

Ariosa’s obligations with regard to the intellectual property; and (3) the scope and dollar amount of

23

some of the purchases under the agreement. Docket No. 28, Walter Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Illumina argues that

24

public disclosure of this information could cause it competitive harm because it could be misused by

25

potential customers and/or competitors in negotiations with Illumina or other suppliers. Id. After

26

reviewing the declaration and the portions of the first amended answer and counterclaims at issue, the

27

Court concludes that Illumina has sufficiently articulated compelling reasons for sealing the requested

28

portions.
2

1

In addition, Illumina’s request to seal these portions of the first amended answer and

2

counterclaims is narrowly tailored because it seeks to redact only the sealable information from the

3

pleading. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to seal. Docket No. 26.

4

The Court notes that the redacted version of the first amended answer and counterclaims that

5

Ariosa publicly filed on June 11, 2014 contains different redactions from those sought by Illumina in

6

its supporting declaration. Docket No. 26-4. Therefore, the Court STRIKES Docket No. 26-4 from the

7

public docket and ORDERS Ariosa to file a new redacted version of its first amended answer and

8

counterclaims, redacting the portions that have been designated as sealable in this order, within seven

9

days from the date this order is filed.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
Dated: June 23, 2014
13

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3