Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL 30 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

No. C 14-01921 SI

ILLUMINA, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff,
v.
ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,

15

Defendant.

/

16
17

On June 11, 2014, defendant Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (“Ariosa”) filed a first amended answer

18

and counterclaims. Docket No. 26-3. On June 23, 2014, the Court granted Ariosa’s motion to seal

19

portions of the first amended answer and counterclaims, specifically paragraph 19, lines 19-22, lines 24-

20

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

21

lines 10-12; paragraph 35, lines 8-9; paragraph 49, lines 14-17; and paragraph 53, lines 24-25. Docket

22

No. 39. By the present motion, plaintiff Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) moves to seal the remainder of

23

paragraph 25 of the first amended answer and counterclaims. Docket No. 30. In the motion, Illumina

24

explains that it did not previously seek to seal paragraph 25 in its entirety due to an administrative error.

25

Id.

26

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts

27

begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

28

Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in

connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling

2

reasons supported by

3

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

4

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and

5

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

6

However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of

7

“good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed.

8

R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only

9

sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

F.3d at 1178-79.

18

In a supporting declaration, Illumina explains that paragraph 25 of the first amended answer and

19

counterclaims relates to an agreement between Ariosa and Illumina and includes specifics regarding the

20

terms of the agreement. Docket No. 30-1, Walter Decl. ¶ 1. The agreement contains a confidentiality

21

provision stating that the agreement, including its terms and conditions, is confidential. Docket No. 26-

22

1, Gindler Decl. ¶ 3. Illumina explains that paragraph 25 of the first amended answer and counterclaims

23

discloses confidential information regarding intellectual property and Ariosa’s obligations with regard

24

to the intellectual property under the Supply Agreement. Docket No. 30-1, Walter Decl. ¶ 2. Illumina

25

argues that public disclosure of this information could cause it competitive harm because it could be

26

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

27

After reviewing the declaration and paragraph 25, the Court concludes that Illumina has sufficiently

28

articulated compelling reasons for sealing the requested paragraph.
2

1

In addition, Illumina’s request to seal is narrowly tailored because it seeks to redact only the

2

sealable information from the pleading, and Illumina has attached a properly redacted version of the first

3

amended answer and counterclaims to its motion to seal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s

4

motion to seal. Docket No. 30.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
Dated: July 2, 2014
8

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3