Richard Pohly v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Filing 123

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 120 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2017)

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. 120

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 6, 2017, Defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“ISI”) filed an administrative motion

14

to file under seal certain exhibits to the Mullenix Declaration submitted in support of Plaintiff

15

Richard Pohly’s Opposition to ISI’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Mot., Dkt. No. 120.

16

Plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Seal. Having considered ISI’s arguments, the relevant

17

legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court issues the following order.

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

2

DISCUSSION

3

ISI seeks to seal portions of Exhibits 92, 104, 107, 115, 119, 128, 129, and 192 of the

4

Mullenix Declaration and Exhibits 12 and 21 in their entireties. Mot. at 1. In support of its

5

Motion, ISI submits the Declaration of David Stoffel, Vice President of Marketing and New

6

Business Development at ISI. Stoffel Decl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 120-1. The Court rules as follows:

7
8

Exhibit No.
12

Ruling
GRANTED.

21

GRANTED.

92

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

104

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

107

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

115

Reasoning
The entirety of Exhibit 12
contains information about
ISI’s Monopolar Curved
Scissors (“MCS”) which ISI’s
competitors could use to
develop or improve their own
products. Stoffel Decl. ¶ 6.
The entirety of Exhibit 21
contains propriety confidential
information which competitors
could use to develop or
improve their own products.
Stoffel Decl. ¶ 7.
The proposed redactions of
Exhibit 92 concern trade secret
and confidential information
about ISI’s root cause
investigation and about the
manufacturing processes of
ISI’s component supplier.
Stoffel Decl. ¶ 8. A
competitor could use this
information to improve its own
products. Id.
The proposed redactions
contain details of ISI’s
research and development,
which a competitor could use
to develop or improve its own
products. Stoffel Decl. ¶ 9
The proposed redactions
contain proprietary
information about ISI’s
confidential test protocols and
results. Stoffel Decl. ¶ 10.
The proposed redactions

GRANTED as to the

9
10

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

2

highlighted portions.

1
2

119

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

128

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

129

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

192

contain proprietary,
confidential trade secrets about
the MCS. Stoffel Decl. ¶ 11.
The proposed redactions
contain competitively sensitive
information. Stoffel Decl. ¶
12.
The proposed redactions
concern proprietary trade
secrets and confidential
information about certain MCS
instrument parts, which a
competitor could use to
improve its own products.
Stoffel Decl. ¶ 13.
The proposed redactions
contain competitively sensitive
information about ISI’s
investigation into returned
MCS instrument. Stoffel Decl.
¶ 14.
The proposed redactions
contain proprietary
information about ISI’s
confidential test protocols and
results. Stoffel Decl. ¶ 10.

GRANTED as to the
highlighted portions.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

In addition, the Court finds the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored in accordance with Civil

17

Local Rule 79-5(b).

18

As the aforementioned exhibits are attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition and as the Opposition

19

has yet to be filed in the public docket, Plaintiff shall file them with his Opposition in accordance

20

with this Order no later than June 9, 2017.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: June 13, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
3