Nevro Corp v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

Filing 272

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 221 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 234 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NEVRO CORP,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 16-cv-06830-VC (MEJ)
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 221, 234
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
INTRODUCTION

13
14

The parties move to file under seal portions of their two joint discovery letters and

15

documents attached thereto. See Dkt. Nos. 221, 234. Having considered the parties’ declarations,

16

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

17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

(9th Cir. 2003)). To seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially

22

related to the merits of a case,” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098

23

(9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016), a

24

party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” Kamakana, 447

25

F.3d at 1178 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, such showing is required

26

even where “the [] motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective

27

order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

28

The strong presumption of public access to judicial documents applies to such motions

because the resolution of a dispute on the merits is at the heart of the interest in ensuring that the

2

public understands the judicial process. Id. The presumption does not apply in the same way to

3

motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. With such motions, “the usual presumption of the public’s right of

5

access is rebutted.” Id. at 1179 (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th

6

Cir. 2002). A party seeking to seal documents attached to such motions nevertheless must meet

7

the lower “good cause” standard under Rule 26(c). Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665,

8

678 (9th Cir. 2010). This requires the party to make a “particularized showing” that “specific

9

prejudice or harm” will result if the information is disclosed. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. “Broad

10

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the Rule 26(c) test.” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th

12

Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and edits omitted).

13

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) also requires that a sealing request “must be narrowly tailored to

14

seek sealing only of sealable material.” “Where a party seeks to file under seal a document

15

designated as confidential by the opposing party pursuant to a protective order, the designating

16

party must submit a declaration establishing the material sought to be sealed is sealable. Civ. L.R.

17

79-5(e)(1).

18
19

DISCUSSION
As the Motions concern discovery matters only tangentially related to the merits of the

20

case, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to the Motions to Seal. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at

21

1213 (“Much of the information that surfaces during pretrial discovery may be unrelated, or only

22

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”).

23

Both Motions concern information Defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston

24

Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation’s (together, “BSC”) designated as “Highly Confidential –

25

Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” BSC counsel Rafael Carbunaru addresses why each document should be

26

sealed. See Carbunaru Decl., Dkt. No. 244. In general, Mr. Carbunaru declares the joint letter

27

briefs and exhibits thereto “specifically recite nonpublic information relating to the research and

28

development and commercialization for potential future BSC products. This information
2

1

comprises core BSC trade secrets.” Id. ¶ 7. The information sought to be sealed concerns

2

“extremely sensitive information that is central to BSC’s business[,]” including commercial plans

3

and activities of potential future products, research and development plans and activities,

4

confidential license agreements with third parties, source code, and “proprietary technical know-

5

how.” Id. ¶ 3; see Carter Decl. ¶ 12, Dkt. No. 244-1. Mr. Carbunaru sets forth specific reasons

6

why BSC would be placed in at a significant competitive disadvantage if this information were to

7

be made public. See Carbunaru Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.

8

1.

Dkt. No. 221

9

Plaintiff Nevro Corp. seeks to file under seal portions of the joint letter concerning BSC’s
Corporate Representative Testimony and portions of the transcript of the November 10, 2017

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

deposition of Matt Jorgenson. Dkt. No. 221. Mr. Carbunaru declares this information concerns

12

“BSC’s patent licenses with third parties, to whom BSC owes contractual confidentiality

13

obligations.” Carbunaru Decl. ¶ 8. The Court finds Mr. Carbunaru sets forth specific reasons

14

establishing good cause for sealing the proposed, narrowly tailored redactions. See id. ¶¶ 8-9.

15

2.

Dkt. No. 234

16

Nevro also moves to file under seal portions of the joint letter concerning the dispute over

17

programming parameters and the exhibits thereto. Dkt. No. 234. Mr. Carbunaru avers this letter

18

and its accompanying exhibits concern “nonpublic information relating to BSC’s nonpublic

19

products in development and future products” which BSC considers to be trade secrets.

20

Carbunaru Decl. ¶ 24. The Court finds Mr. Carbunaru establishes good cause for sealing and

21

further finds the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored.
CONCLUSION

22
23

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS both Motions to File Under Seal.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: January 22, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

28
3