Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. et al v. Aragen Bioscience, Inc. et al

Filing 102

ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 76 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KYOWA HAKKO KIRIN CO., LTD., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

Re: Dkt. Nos. 76, 79
ARAGEN BIOSCIENCE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-05993-JD

In our circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different standards apply depending on

13

whether the request is being made in connection with a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive

14

motion.

15

For dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption of access to judicial records”

16

fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling reasons” to overcome that

17

presumption. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006)

18

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). This

19

standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy”

20

it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, the district court must

21

also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d

22

1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

23

The non-dispositive motion context is different. There, “the usual presumption of the

24

public’s right of access is rebutted,” the “public has less of a need for access to court records

25

attached only to non-dispositive motions,” and the “public policies that support the right of access

26

to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive

27

materials.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). In that context, materials may be

28

sealed so long as the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing” under the “good

1

cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at

2

1138). In either case, however, “[a]n unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage’ to competitors

3

without explaining ‘how a competitor would use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage’

4

is insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D.

5

Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-003305-LHK, 2012 WL

6

6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)).
In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties

7
8

requesting sealing must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that rule’s requirement

9

that the request must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable
as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” i.e., is “sealable.” Civil

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

12

material.” Id.

13

I.

14
15

DISCUSSION
The pending motion to seal is associated with a non-dispositive motion for leave to amend

infringement contentions, so the “good cause” standard applies.

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

Dkt. No. Portion of Reason for Sealing
Document
Sealed
Pages 2-4
75-1
- Confidential information about cell lines that defendants
have developed.
- Confidential third-party information, the disclosure of
which may violate confidentiality provisions in
defendants’ agreements with their clients and cause
competitive and financial harm to defendants by allowing
their competitors insight into defendants’ research and
development strategies and efforts.
Pages 2-4
75-2
- Confidential information about cell lines that defendants
have developed.
- Confidential third-party information, the disclosure of
which may violate confidentiality provisions in
defendants’ agreements with their clients and cause
competitive and financial harm to defendants by allowing
their competitors insight into defendants’ research and
development strategies and efforts.
2

Ruling

Granted.

Granted.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dkt. No. Portion of Reason for Sealing
Ruling
Document
Sealed
Pages 7-10 - Confidential information about cell lines that plaintiffs
75-1
Granted.
and their licensees have developed, including confidential
antibody names and targets.
- Reveals confidential information regarding third-party
licensees of plaintiffs’ POTELLIGENT® technology, the
disclosure of which may violate confidentiality
provisions in plaintiffs’ agreements with their licensees
and cause competitive and financial harm to plaintiffs by
allowing their competitors insight into plaintiffs’ research
and development strategies and efforts.

75-2

Pages 7-10

- Confidential information about cell lines that plaintiffs
Granted.
and their licensees have developed, including confidential
antibody names and targets.
- Confidential information about third-party licensees of
plaintiffs’ POTELLIGENT® technology, the disclosure
of which may violate confidentiality provisions in
plaintiffs’ agreements with their licensees and cause
competitive and financial harm to plaintiffs by allowing
their competitors insight into plaintiffs’ research and
development strategies and efforts.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2017

18
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3