Richard Pohly v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Filing 105

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 96 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICHARD POHLY,

Case No. 15-cv-04113-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 96

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On April 13, 2017, Plaintiff Richard Pohly filed an administrative motion to file under seal

14

his Opposition to Defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc.’s (“ISI”) Motion in Limine No. 6. Mot., Dkt.

15

No. 96; Opp’n, Dkt. No. 96-1. Plaintiff argues the Opposition contains materials ISI designated as

16

confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. See Mot.; see Protective Order, Dkt. No. 44.

17

Having considered the parties’ arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court issues the

18

following order.

19
20

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and

21

documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

23

(9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons

24

supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also

25

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing

26

appropriate where companies “filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures

27

the two companies take to keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the

28

harm they would suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”).

1

Indeed, such showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were

2

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
But the presumption does not apply in the same way to nondispositive motions, “such that

3
4

the usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted.” Id. (citing Phillips v. General

5

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). “Good cause” is the proper standard when

6

parties wish to seal records attached to a nondispositive motion. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

7

605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).
DISCUSSION

8

The good cause standard applies to documents filed in connection with nondispositive

9

motions in limine. See TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., 2015 WL 3776424, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2015).

12

Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any material

13

designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion for a sealing

14

order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e). ISI, as the designating party, submits the Declaration of David

15

Stoffel and the Declaration of Emily Reitmeier in support of Plaintiff’s Motion. Stoffel Decl.,

16

Dkt. No. 104-2; Reitmeier Decl., Dkt. No. 104-3. ISI seeks to seal only a limited portion of the

17

Opposition. See Reitmeier Decl., Ex. A at 5 (proposed redactions). ISI represents the proposed

18

redactions contain information that “constitutes commercially valuable confidential and

19

proprietary information” which could be used by competitors to ISI’s disadvantage if made public.

20

ISI Resp. at 2, Dkt. No. 104; Stoffel Decl. ¶ 3. Specifically, the information concerns “a product

21

not yet released to the public and the technology used in that product.” ISI Resp. at 2; see Stoffel

22

Decl. ¶ 4 (“[T]he redacted information relates to products still in their testing phases that have not

23

yet been released to the public and are not for sale.”). Stoffel declares that “[r]elease of

24

information about a new product could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to

25

replicate ISI’s new products, and circumvent the considerable time[] and resources[] necessary in

26

product development and design.” Stoffel Decl. ¶ 7.

27
28

“[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to serve . . . as sources of business information
that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing[.]” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
2

1

589, 598 (1978); see Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA, Inc., 2015 WL 4116738, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

2

July 7, 2015) (applying more stringent compelling reasons standard and granting motion to file

3

under seal information that could place plaintiff at a competitive disadvantage). ISI has

4

established that the information sought to be sealed relates to ISI’s confidential research or

5

development and that disclosure could cause it competitive harm. ISI’s proposed redactions are

6

narrowly tailored to address that risk. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). As such, the Court GRANTS

7

Plaintiff’s Motion to file its Opposition to ISI’s Motion in Limine No. 6 under seal. Plaintiff shall

8

refile its Motion with ISI’s proposed redactions no later than April 27, 2017.

9

The Court once more directs the parties to follow Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D). The
Court advised the parties about this rule in a prior Order regarding motions to seal. See Order at 1

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

n.1, Dkt. No. 64. In the future, the Court will strike documents that do not comply with this rule.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16
17

Dated: April 20, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3