Amgen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al

Filing 232

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 227 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 AMGEN INC., ET AL., 7 Case No. 14-cv-04741-RS (MEJ) Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 227 SANDOZ INC., et al., 10 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 INTRODUCTION 13 On April 13, 2017, Plaintiffs Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing, Ltd. (collectively, 14 15 “Amgen”) move to file under seal Exhibit A to the Maniscalco Declaration in Support of Amgen’s 16 Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions. Sealing Mot., Dkt. No. 227; Maniscalco 17 Decl., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 226-1. In support of Amgen’s Motion, Maniscalco declares Defendant 18 Sandoz1 designated Exhibit A as “Highly Confidential – BLA Material” pursuant to the parties’ 19 protective order. Maniscalco Sealing Decl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 227-1; Protective Order, Dkt. No. 60. 20 Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court GRANTS 21 Amgen’s Motion for the following reasons. LEGAL STANDARD 22 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and 23 24 documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 25 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 26 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons 27 1 28 Amgen does not specify whether “Sandoz” refers to Sandoz Inc., Sandoz International GmbH, or Sandoz GmbH. 1 supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also 2 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing 3 appropriate where companies “filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures 4 the two companies take to keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the 5 harm they would suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”). 6 Indeed, such showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 7 previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 8 But the presumption does not apply in the same way to non-dispositive motions, “such that the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted.” Id. (citing Phillips v. General 10 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). “Good cause” is the proper standard when 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 parties wish to keep records attached to a non-dispositive motion under seal. Pintos v. Pac. 12 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). DISCUSSION 13 14 Where a party seeks to file under seal any material designated as confidential by another 15 party, the submitting party must request a sealing order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e). “Within 4 16 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file 17 a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated information is sealable.” Id. at 79-5(e)(1). 18 “If the Designating Party does not file a responsive declaration as required by subsection 79- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5(e)(1) and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Id. at 79-5(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 79-5(e)(1), Josephine Liu, Head of U.S. Intellectual Property at Sandoz Inc., submitted a declaration supporting Sandoz’s confidentiality designations. Liu Decl., Dkt. No. 229. Liu explains Exhibit A “contains confidential information concerning Sandoz’s manufacturing and purification processes for Zarxio, Sandoz’s biosimilar filgrastim product.” Id. ¶ 2. She contends Sandoz’s competitors could use this information to Sandoz’s disadvantage; Sandoz accordingly takes “careful measures” to ensure that it is not disclosed to the public so as to avoid substantial harm. Id. Sandoz demonstrates good cause for sealing Exhibit A to Amgen’s 2 1 nondispositive motion, and the Court finds Exhibit A is sealable. “[C]ourts have refused to permit 2 their files to serve . . . as sources of business information that might harm a litigants competitive 3 standing[.]” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (internal citations 4 omitted). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Amgen’s Motion. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 Dated: April 18, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?