Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 386

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ( 363 ; 366 ; 368 ; 374 ; 149 ; 164 ; 235 ; 242 ; 258 ; 261 ; 263 ; 265 ; 267 ; 282 ; 285 ; 287 ; 289 ; 291 ; 293 ; 295 ; 297 ; 299 ; 306 ; 314 and 332 ) MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2020)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PLEXXIKON INC., Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 Case No. 17-cv-04405-HSG ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 164, 166, 168, 176, 178, 185, 187, 193, 196, 199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 224, 226, 231, 232, 235, 242, 258, 261, 263, 265, 267, 282, 285, 287, 289, 291, 293, 295, 297, 299, 306, 314, 332, 363, 366, 368, 374 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions 14 15 of documents in connection with motions for partial summary judgment, Daubert motions, and 16 motions in limine filed by Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. and Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals 17 Corporation (twenty-eight total). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART 18 and DENIES IN PART the motions to file under seal. 19 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 21 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 22 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 23 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 24 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 25 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 26 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 27 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 28 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 1 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 2 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 3 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 4 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 5 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 6 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 7 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 8 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 9 to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The 12 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 13 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license 14 agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” 15 satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- 16 MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information 17 “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); 18 Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 19 June 30, 2015). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 20 21 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 22 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 23 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 24 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th 25 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 26 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 27 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 28 // 2 1 2 II. DISCUSSION Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary 3 judgment motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents. The 4 Court applies the lower good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert 5 motions and motions in limine. 6 As indicated in the table below, the only proffered justification for sealing many of the 7 documents is that the information was designated as “highly confidential” by either Plaintiff, 8 Defendant, or non-parties GlaskoSmithKline PLC and GlaskoSmithKline LLC. But a designation 9 of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 795(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ initial designation of confidentiality to establish 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 coverage under the stipulated protective order. See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, 12 Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause 13 ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by 14 stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. 15 AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, many 16 of the parties’ motions do not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In addition, in many 17 instances the designating party for the materials did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), 18 because they did not file a declaration within four days of the motion. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 19 The Court finds that sealing is not warranted as to those documents. 20 Nevertheless, the Court finds that as to the remaining motions to seal, the parties have 21 narrowly tailored their requested redactions to confidential and proprietary business, scientific, 22 manufacturing, sales, or licensing information. The public release of these documents could give 23 non-party competitors an unfair advantage in the development or marketing of rival products. See 24 In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents 25 could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 26 standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Thus, the 27 Court finds that the parties have in those circumstances established either compelling reasons or 28 good cause to grant the motions to file under seal. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 3 1 Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 2 Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). 3 4 5 6 Docket No. Public /(Sealed) Dkt. No. 150-1/ (149-4) 7 Document Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed Dkt. No. 149 – GRANTED Exhibit A to the Entire document Declaration of Daralyn J. Durie in Support of March 18, 2019 Discovery Letter 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dkt. No. 165/ (164-4) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Dkt. No. 165-2/ (164-6) 19 20 21 22 Dkt. No. 165-3/ (164-8) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 165-5/ (164-10) Dkt. No. 164 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Notice of Page 2:15–28 Motion and Motion to Page 3:1–13, 18–20 Exclude Certain Opinions Page 4:4–15, 19–20 and Testimony of Page 5:5–12, 18–20, 24– Novartis’s Technical 26 Experts Page 6:13–15 Page 8:19–24 Page 9:1–5 Page 10:1–6, 15–22, 27– 28 Page 11:25–28 Page 12:1–2, 9–11 Exhibit 1 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Novartis’s Technical Experts Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Novartis’s Technical Experts Exhibit 4 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Novartis’s 4 Ruling GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 153.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Technical Experts Dkt. No. 165-6/ Exhibit 5 to the Entire document DENIED (164-12) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Novartis’s Technical Experts Dkt. No. 165-8/ Exhibit 7 to the Entire document DENIED (164-14) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Motion to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Novartis’s Technical Experts Dkt. No. 166 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 167/ Plaintiff’s Notice of Page 1:8–9, 13–18 DENIED (166-4) Motion and Motion for Page 2:9 (No supporting Summary Judgment of No Page 5:17–22, 26–28 declaration filed. See Anticipation Page 6:1–10 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Page 11:13–22 Page 12:3, 6–18, 20 Page 13:17–18, 20–24 Page 14:1–2 Page 15:13–14, 21–24 Page 16:1–7, 10, 12 Page 17:13–14 Dkt. No. 167-2/ Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED (166-6) Declaration of Matthew (No supporting W. Samuels in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment of No Anticipation Dkt. No. 167-10/ Exhibit 9 to the Entire document DENIED (166-8) Declaration of Matthew (No supporting W. Samuels in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment of No Anticipation Dkt. No. 167-20/ Exhibit 19 to the Entire document DENIED (166-10) Declaration of Matthew (No supporting W. Samuels in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Motion for Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Summary Judgment of No Anticipation Dkt. No. 167-21/ Exhibit 20 to the Entire document GRANTED (166-12) Declaration of Matthew (Contains proprietary W. Samuels in Support of pharmaceutical 5 Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Anticipation 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 167-22/ (166-14) 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 169/ (168-10) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dkt. No. 169-1/ (168-4) 17 18 19 20 Dkt. No. 169-3/ (168-8) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Dkt. No. 169-4/ (168-8) Exhibit 21 to the Declaration of Matthew W. Samuels in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Anticipation Entire document Dkt. No. 168 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Notice of Page i:7–10 Motion and Motion to Page 1:6–9, 12–15, 20 Exclude the Opinions and Page 2:7–10, 16–28 Testimony of James E. Page 3:1–28 Malackowski Page 4:1–6 Page 7:3–28 Page 8:1–2, 4–15, 19–20, 26–27 Page 9:8–17 Page 10:1–7, 16–28 Page 11:1, 11–12, 14–24 Page 12:4–5, 16–28 Page 13:1–14, 17–28 Page 14:1–17, 19–20 Exhibit 1 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of James E. Malackowski Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of James E. Malackowski Exhibit 3 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of James E. Malackowski 28 6 research and development information. See Dkt. No. 171.) GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 171.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Dkt. No. 176 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 177/ Defendant’s Notice of Page 2:16, 24–28 GRANTED IN (176-4) Motion and Motion for Page 3:6–14, 21–26 PART Partial Summary Page 4:1–2, 7–11 (The following Judgment Page 5:11–26 contains proprietary Page 6:1–13 pharmaceutical Page 7:2–18, 20 research and Page 8:8–12, 26–27 development Page 9:1–2, 6–15 information: Page 12:28 • Page 3:6–14, Page 13:1, 5–8, 10–18 21–26 Page 14:5–9 • Page 4:1–2, 7– Page 15:25–27 11 Page 16:21–22 • Page 5:11–26 Page 17:15–18 • Page 6:1–13 • Page 12:28 • Page 13:1, 5–8, 10–18 • Page 14:5–9 See Dkt. No. 182.) Dkt. No. 177-16/ Declaration of Tara R. Page 2:3, 7, 10, 23, 25–26 GRANTED (176-12) Rheault, PhD., In Support Page 3:1–27 (Contains proprietary of Defendant’s Motion for Page 4:1, 3–12 pharmaceutical Partial Summary research and Judgment development information. See Dkt. No. 182.) Dkt. No. 177-17/ Exhibit 1 to the Entire document GRANTED (176-13) Declaration of (Contains proprietary Tara R. Rheault, PhD., In pharmaceutical Support of Defendant’s research and Motion for Partial development Summary Judgment information. See Dkt. No. 182.) Dkt. No. 177-18/ Exhibit 2 to the Entire document GRANTED (176-14) Declaration of (Contains proprietary Tara R. Rheault, PhD., In pharmaceutical Support of Defendant’s research and Motion for Partial development Summary Judgment information. See Dkt. No. 182.) Dkt. No. 177-2/ Declaration of Phil S. Page 2:11–16, 18–27 GRANTED (176-6) Baran, PhD., In Support Page 3:1, 11–18 (Contains proprietary of Defendant’s Motion for Page 4:9–13 pharmaceutical Partial Summary Page 5:5–23, 25–26 research and Judgment Appendix A, pp. 1–3, 9– development 11, 19 information. See Dkt. Appendix B in its entirety No. 182.) 7 1 2 Dkt. No. 177-6/ (Native Excel File) Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Phil S. Baran, PhD., In Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Entire document Dkt. No. 177-7/ (176-7) Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Phil S. Baran, PhD., In Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Entire document Dkt. No. 177-8/ (176-8) Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Phil S. Baran, PhD., In Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Entire document Dkt. No. 177-9/ (176-9) Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Phil S. Baran, PhD., In Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Entire document Dkt. No. 177-14/ (176-10) Exhibit 12 to the Declaration of Phil S. Baran, PhD., In Support of Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibit 1 to the Declaration Of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Defendant’s Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Entire document 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Dkt. No. 177-20/ (176-15) Entire document 8 GRANTED (Contains trade secrets, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 182.) GRANTED (Contains trade secrets, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 182.) GRANTED (Contains trade secrets, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 182.) GRANTED (Contains trade secrets, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 182.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Dkt. No. 177-22/ (176-16) Exhibit 3 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration Of (No supporting Thomas P. Steindler In declaration filed. See Support Of Defendant’s Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 178 – DENIED Dkt. No. 179/ Defendant’s Notice of Page i:12 DENIED (178-4) Motion and Motion to Page 2:2–3, 5–6, 8, 9, 12– (No supporting Strike Portions 15, 18–19, 21 declaration filed. See of Expert Report of Page 5:10–12, 16–23 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Plaintiff’s Expert Michael Page 6:8 L. Metzker, Ph.D. Page 7:5, 7, 10, 15, 18–19, 20, 24 Page 8:3, 7, 11, 16, 20, 27–28 Page 9:1–2, 16 Dkt. No. 179-3/ Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED (178-5) Declaration of David (No supporting Mlaver In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion To Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Strike Portions of Expert Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 179-7/ Exhibit 5 to the Pages 12–15 DENIED (178-7) Declaration of David (No supporting Mlaver In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion To Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Strike Portions of Expert Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 179-9/ Exhibit 7 to the Entire document DENIED (178-8) Declaration of David (No supporting Mlaver In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion To Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Strike Portions of Expert Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 185 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 186/ Defendant’s Opposition Page 4:8, 13 GRANTED IN (185-4) To Plaintiff’s Motion For Page 5:13 PART Summary Judgment Of Page 7:25 (The following No Anticipation Page 10:7 contains proprietary Page 14:1–2, 5, 24–25 pharmaceutical Page 15:6–21 research and 9 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 186-3/ (185-5) 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 186-4/ (185-7) 9 10 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Anticipation Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Anticipation Page 16:12–13, 23–25 Page 17:15–16, 20–21 Page 18:15–18, 24–26 Page 19:8–9 Entire document development information: • Page 15:10–17 See Dkt. No. 190.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) ¶¶ 80–84, 86–87, 99–108 GRANTED IN PART (The following contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information: • ¶¶ 86, 104, 107, 108 See Dkt. No. 190.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dkt. No. 186-6/ (185-8) 15 16 17 18 19 Dkt. No. 186-8/ (185-9) 20 21 Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Anticipation Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Anticipation Entire document Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Entire document Entire document 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 186-9/ (185-10) 10 DENIED (Defendant states, in conclusory fashion, that the documents “contain and refer to competitively sensitive documents the public disclosure of which would cause harm to Novartis.” See Dkt. No. 185-1. This generic explanation is insufficient to establish good cause.) GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Defendant’s Opposition research and To Plaintiff’s Motion For development Summary Judgment Of information. See Dkt. No Anticipation No. 190.) Dkt. No. 186-10/ Exhibit 9 to the Entire document GRANTED (185-11) Declaration of Thomas P. (Contains proprietary Steindler In Support Of pharmaceutical Defendant’s Opposition research and To Plaintiff’s Motion For development Summary Judgment Of information. See Dkt. No Anticipation No. 190.) Dkt. No. 186-11/ Exhibit 10 to the Entire document DENIED (185-12) Declaration of Thomas P. (No supporting Steindler In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Opposition Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Anticipation Dkt. No. 186-12/ Exhibit 11 to the Entire document DENIED (185-13) Declaration of Thomas P. (No supporting Steindler In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Opposition Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) To Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Anticipation Dkt. No. 187 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 188/ Defendant’s Opposition Page i:8–10 DENIED (187-4) To Plaintiff’s Motion To Page 1:7–8, 10, 15–16, 21 (Defendant states, in Exclude The Opinions Page 2:19–27 conclusory fashion, And Testimony Of James Page 3:1–15, 18–19, 23, that the documents E. Malackowski 25–26 “contain and refer to Page 5:3–5, 8, 13, 16, 19– competitively 20, 23, 25–26 sensitive documents Page 6:5 the public disclosure Page 7:12–14, 16–19, 23 of which would cause Page 8:7, 13–17, 19, 20, harm to Novartis.” 22, 24–28 See Dkt. No. 187-1. Page 9:3, 6–7 This generic Page 10:5–7, 16–20, 25– explanation is 28 insufficient to Page 11:1–2, 27–28 establish good cause.) Dkt. No. 188-2/ Exhibit A to the Entire document GRANTED IN (187-5) Declaration of Tom PART Steindler in Support of (Pages 12, 52–63 Defendant’s Opposition contain trade secrets To Plaintiff’s Motion To and highly Exclude The Opinions confidential licensing And Testimony Of James information. See Dkt. 11 E. Malackowski 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dkt. No. 188-3/ (187-6) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dkt. No. 188-4/ (187-7) 14 15 16 17 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Exclude The Opinions And Testimony Of James E. Malackowski Exhibit C to the Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Exclude The Opinions And Testimony Of James E. Malackowski Entire document Entire document 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 194/ (193-4) Dkt. No. 193 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Reply in Page i:5–9 Support of Its Motion to Page 1:5, 8–14, 17, 23–24 Exclude the Opinions and Page 2:9–11 Testimony of James E. Page 3:2, 27 Malackowski Page 4:8–12, 21–25, 27– 28 Page 5:1–2, 12–13, 15–16, 25–28 Page 6:1–2, 4–9, 14–17, 23–26 Page 8:3–13 12 No. 191. As to the rest of the document, Defendant states, in conclusory fashion, that it “contain[s] and refer[s] to competitively sensitive” information. See Dkt. No. 187-1. This generic explanation is insufficient to establish good cause.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (Defendant states, in conclusory fashion, that the documents “contain and refer to competitively sensitive documents the public disclosure of which would cause harm to Novartis.” See Dkt. No. 187-1. This generic explanation is insufficient to establish good cause.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 Dkt. No. 197/ (196-4) 3 4 5 6 Dkt. No 200/ (199-4) 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dkt. No. 200-1/ (199-6) 15 16 17 Dkt. No. 200-5/ (199-7) 18 19 20 21 Dkt. No. 200-6/ (199-8) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 200-7/ (199-9) Page 9:9–10 Dkt. No. 196 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Reply in Page 3:3–14 Support of Its Motion to Page 5:6–8, 24–28 Exclude Certain Opinions Page 6:1–18 and Testimony of Page 7:2–6 Novartis’s Technical Experts Dkt. No. 199 – DENIED Defendant’s Notice of Page 2:14, 22–28 Motion and Motion to Page 3:1–12, 14–26 Exclude Expert Testimony Page 4:1–10 of Michael L. Metzker, Page 5:23 Ph.D. Page 6:7–8, 11–13, 17– 21, 24–25, 27–28 Page 7:5–6, 8–11, 14–28 Page 8:1–6, 16–17, 20–26 Page 9:3–6, 9, 10–13, 16– 19, 21, 22–24, 26–27 Page 10:1–11, 20–24 Page 11:6–8 Page 12:20, 24 Declaration of Phil S. ¶¶ 17–28, 30–35, 37–45, Baran, Ph.D. In Support 47, 49, 58, 59 Of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Exhibit 3 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Exhibit 4 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Exhibit 5 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, 13 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 Dkt. No. 200-8/ (199-10) 3 4 5 6 Dkt. No. 200-9/ (199-11) 7 8 9 10 Dkt. No. 200-10/ (199-12) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 Dkt. No. 202/ (201-4) 16 17 18 Dkt. No. 202-2/ (201-5) 19 20 21 22 Dkt. No. 202-3/ (201-6) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 204/ (203-4) Ph.D. Exhibit 6 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Exhibit 7 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Exhibit 8 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 201 – DENIED Defendant’s Notice of Page 1:22–28 Motion and Motion to Page 2:1–16, 18–28 Exclude Expert Testimony Page 3:1–13 of Gregory K. Leonard, Page 5:5–12, 15–24 Ph.D. Page 6, lines 15-28 Page 7, lines 1-3, 6-11 Exhibit 1 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 203 – DENIED Defendant’s Notice of Page 1:20–25 Motion and Motion to Page 2:1, 4–25 Preclude Certain Page 3:1–5 Testimony of Dr. Susana Page 7:21–23, 25–28 14 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 Dkt. No. 204-2/ (203-5) 3 4 5 6 Dkt. No. 204-3/ (203-6) 7 8 9 10 Dkt. No. 206/ (205-4) United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dkt. No. 206-2/ (205-5) 14 15 16 17 Dkt. No. 208/ (207-4) 18 19 20 21 Dkt. No. 208-1/ (207-6) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 208-5/ (207-8) Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Page 8:1 Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Tom (No supporting Steindler in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Preclude Certain Testimony of Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Exhibit 2 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Tom (No supporting Steindler in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Preclude Certain Testimony of Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Dkt. No. 205 – DENIED Defendant’s Notice of Page 2:6–7, 21 DENIED Motion and Motion to Page 6:2–5, 18–20 (No supporting Exclude Expert Testimony declaration filed. See of Ted Sweeney Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Tom (No supporting Steindler in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Exclude Expert Testimony of Ted Sweeney Dkt. No. 207 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 1:3–4, 6 GRANTED Defendant’s Motion to Page 3:2–3, 22, 24 (Contains proprietary Strike Portions of Report Page 4:4–5, 28 pharmaceutical of Plaintiff’s Expert Page 5:2–4 research and Michael L. Metzker, Page 9:13–14, 16 development Ph.D. information. See Dkt. No. 221.) Declaration of Laura E. Page 2:3–4 GRANTED Miller in Support of (Contains proprietary Plaintiff’s Opposition to pharmaceutical Defendant’s Motion to research and Strike Portions of Report development of Plaintiff’s Expert information. See Dkt. Michael L. Metzker, No. 221.) Ph.D. Exhibit 4 to the Entire document GRANTED Declaration of Laura E. (Contains proprietary Miller in Support of pharmaceutical Plaintiff’s Opposition to research and Defendant’s Motion to development Strike Portions of Report information. See Dkt. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 of Plaintiff’s Expert No. 221.) Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 208-10/ Exhibit 9 to the Page 11:10–11, 14–16, GRANTED (207-10) Declaration of Laura E. 18–21 (Contains proprietary Miller in Support of Page 14:27–28 pharmaceutical Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 15:3–9 research and Defendant’s Motion to development Strike Portions of Report information. See Dkt. of Plaintiff’s Expert No. 221.) Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 208-14/ Exhibit 13 to the Entire document GRANTED (207-12) Declaration of Laura E. (Contains trade Miller in Support of secrets, as well as Plaintiff’s Opposition to proprietary Defendant’s Motion to pharmaceutical Strike Portions of Report research and of Plaintiff’s Expert development Michael L. Metzker, information. See Dkt. Ph.D. No. 221.) Dkt. No. 208-15/ Exhibit 14 to the Page 10:13–16, 26 DENIED (207-14) Declaration of Laura E. Page 31:11–17 (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Michael L. Metzker, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 209 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 210/ Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page i:8–9 GRANTED IN (209-4) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Page 2:7–9 PART Corporation’s Motion for Page 5:17–28 (The following Judgment on the Page 6:1, 3–10, 18–22, contains proprietary Pleadings 24–28 pharmaceutical Page 7:1–2, 4 research and Page 8:6–13, 18–20 development Page 9:3–4, 6–7, 9–10 information: Page 14:15–17 • Page 6:5–10, 12– Page 15:4–5, 7–9, 11, 13– 22, 24–28 14 • Page 7:1–2, 4 Page 17:4–11, 26–27 See Dkt. No. 223.) Page 21:23–25 Page 22:1–2 Dkt. No. 210-6/ Exhibit 5 to the Entire document GRANTED (209-6) Declaration of Laura E. (Contains proprietary Miller in Support of pharmaceutical 16 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 210-7/ (209-8) 5 6 7 8 9 Dkt. No. 210-8/ (209-10) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dkt. No. 210-9/ (209-12) 14 15 16 17 18 Dkt. No. 210-10/ (209-14) 19 20 21 22 23 Dkt. No. 210-11/ (209-16) 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 210-12/ (209-18) Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of research and development information. See Dkt. No. 223.) Entire document GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 223.) Entire document GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 223.) Entire document GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 223.) Entire document DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Entire document DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Entire document DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Dkt. No. 210-13/ Exhibit 12 to the Entire document DENIED (209-20) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Dkt. No. 210-14/ Exhibit 13 to the Entire document DENIED (209-22) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Dkt. No. 211 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 212/ Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page i:11–13 GRANTED IN (211-4) Defendant’s Motion for Page 1:3–5, 17, 19–21, 23, PART Partial Summary 28 (The following Judgment Page 8:2, 4, 28 contains proprietary Page 9:1–4, 7, 24–28 pharmaceutical Page 10:1, 7–13, 22–24, research and 26–28 development Page 11:4, 7–9 information: Page 15:19 • Page i:11–13 Page 16:12–13 • Page 1:3–5, 17, Page 17:10–12 23, 28 • Page 8:2, 4, 28 • Page 9:1–4, 24– 28 • Page 10:1, 7–13, 22–24, 26–28 • Page 11:4, 7–9 • Page 15:19 • Page 16:12–13 See Dkt. No. 222.) Dkt. No. 213-1/ Exhibit A to the Page 42:1–25 DENIED (211-6) Declaration of Michael L. Page 43:1–6 (No supporting Metzker in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary 18 1 2 Dkt. No. 213-2/ (211-8) 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Judgment Exhibit B to the Declaration of Michael L. Metzker in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Page 10:15–16, 26 Page 15:10–22, 14–16, 18–20, 26–27 Page 16:1, 18–20, 23–24 Page 27:17 Page 31:11–19 Page 46:20–21 Page 62:1, 3, 6–12, 14–15, 26 Page 63:1–4, 7–8, 26 Page 64:9–11 Page 65:2, 7–9, 11–12, 14, 18, 20–22 Page 66:23–26 Page 67:1–2, 4, 6–24 Page 106:1–3, 5, 11–12, 15–18 Dkt. No. 212-13/ (211-10) GRANTED IN PART (The following contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information: • Page 62:1, 3, 6– 12, 14–15, 26 • Page 63:1–4 • Page 65:18 • Page 66:23–26 • Page 67:1–2, 4, 6–24 • Page 106:1–3. See Dkt. No. 222.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Exhibit 12 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 212-20/ Exhibit 19 to the Entire document DENIED (211-12) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 214-1/ Exhibit A to the Entire document DENIED (211-14) Declaration of Jeffrey (No supporting Winkler in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 224 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 325/ Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 1:17–18 DENIED (224-4) Defendant’s Motion to Page 4:6–7 (No supporting Exclude Expert Testimony Page 5:1 declaration filed. See of Gregory K. Leonard, Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Ph.D. Dkt. No. 325-2/ Exhibit 1 to the Page 31, ¶¶ 62–63 GRANTED IN (224-6) Declaration of Laura E. Page 32, ¶¶ 63–65 PART Miller in Support of Page 33, ¶¶ 65–66, n.88 (The following 19 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dkt. No. 325-3/ (224-8) 12 13 14 15 16 Dkt. No. 227/ (226-4) 17 18 19 Dkt. No. 227-2/ (226-6) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Dkt. No. 227-3/ (226-8) Page 34, ¶ 68 Page 35, ¶ 69, n.93, 95 Page 36, ¶ 70 Page 37, ¶ 72 Page 38, ¶¶ 72–73, n.102, 104 Page 39, ¶¶ 73–74, n.107 Page 40, n.110 Page 44, ¶ 81 Page 72, ¶¶ 124–125 Page 73, ¶ 125 Page 74, ¶ 128, n.219 Page 75, ¶¶ 128–129 Page 76, ¶¶ 131–132, n.222 Page 77, ¶¶ 132–135 Page 81, ¶ 147 Page 45, n.133 Page 46, ¶ 74 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 226 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 3:7–13, 16–21 Defendant’s Motion to Page 5:14–15, 21–24 Preclude Certain Page 6:22–27 Testimony of Dr. Susana Page 9:8–10 Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Exhibit 1 to the Page 9, ¶ 20 Declaration of Laura E. Page 22, ¶ 50 Miller in Support of Page 25, n.52 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 26, ¶ 59, n.54 Defendant’s Motion to Page 27, ¶¶ 60, 61 Preclude Certain Page 28, ¶ 63, n.61 Testimony of Dr. Susana Page 29, ¶ 66 Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Preclude Certain Testimony of Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert 28 20 contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information: • Page 44, ¶ 81 • Page 71–72, ¶ 124 • Page 76, n.222 • Page 77, ¶¶ 133, 135 See Dkt. No. 237.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 Dkt. No. 233/ (231-4) 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 233-2/ (231-6) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dkt. No. 233-3/ (231-7) 13 14 15 Dkt. No. 233-4/ (231-8) 16 17 18 19 Dkt. No. 233-5/ (231-9) 20 21 22 Dkt. No. 233-6/ (231-10) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 234/ (232-4) Dkt. No. 231 – DENIED Defendant’s Reply in Page 1:15–17 Support of Motion for Page 2:6–7 Partial Summary Page 3:4–5 Judgment Page 6:5–8, 12–13, 21, 23–24 27–28 Page 7:1–4, 8 13, 16, 26– 28 Page 11:20–28 Page 12:8 Page 13:20–23 Page 15:8–10, 13–14, 17 Exhibit A to the Pages 12–15 Declaration of Thomas Steindler in Support of Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibit B to the Entire document Declaration of Thomas Steindler in Support of Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibit C to the Entire document Declaration of Thomas Steindler in Support of Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibit D to the Entire document Declaration of Thomas Steindler in Support of Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Exhibit E to the Entire document Declaration of Thomas Steindler in Support of Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 232 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 3:25–28 Defendant’s Motion to Page 4:1–2, 5–20 Exclude Expert Testimony Page 6:7 of Ted Sweeney Page 7:24–25 Page 8:11–14, 23, 28 21 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 234-3/ (232-6) 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 234-5/ (232-8) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dkt. No. 234-6/ (232-10) 13 14 15 16 17 Dkt. No. 236/ (235-4) 18 19 20 Dkt. No. 236-2/ (235-6) 21 22 23 24 Dkt. No. 236-3/ (235-8) 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 242-3/ Page 9:15, 28 Page 11:21, 27–28 Page 12:17, 28 Page 13:5–7, 12–13, 26 Exhibit 2 to the Page 13:12–13, 15–26 Declaration of Laura E. Page 14:5, 7–17 Miller in Support of Page 23:22–23 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 24:7–12 Defendant’s Motion to Page 25:16–27 Exclude Expert Testimony Page 26:1–10, 12–14 of Ted Sweeney Exhibit 4 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Ted Sweeney Exhibit 5 to the Page 1:19–21, 23–26, 28 Declaration of Laura E. Page 2:1–3, 6–7, 12–16, Miller in Support of 27–28 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 3:1–3, 11–12 Defendant’s Motion to Page 4:3, 5 Exclude Expert Testimony Page 5:17–18 of Ted Sweeney Page 6:15–16 Page 7:19–27 Page 8:1–2, 10–15 Dkt. No. 235 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion to Page 4:27–28 Strike Defendant’s Page 5:1 Daubert Motions Filed June 6, 2019 Exhibit 1 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Daubert Motions Filed June 6, 2019 Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Daubert Motions Filed June 6, 2019 Dkt. No. 242 – GRANTED Exhibit 5 to the Entire document 22 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) GRANTED 1 (Native Excel File) 2 3 4 5 6 Dkt. No. 259/ (258-4) 7 8 Dkt. No. 259-2/ (258-6) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dkt. No. 259-3/ (258-8) 13 14 15 16 17 Dkt. No. 262/ (261-4) 18 19 Dkt. No. 262-2/ (261-6) 20 21 22 23 Dkt. No. 262-3/ (261-8) 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 262-4/ (261-10) Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Preclude Certain Testimony of Dr. Susana Ortiz-Urda Under Daubert Dkt. No. 258 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion In Page 1:24–28 Limine No. 1 Excluding Page 2:1–3, 15–18 Undisclosed Validity Page 3:1–3 Challenges Exhibit 1 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Excluding Undisclosed Validity Challenges Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Excluding Undisclosed Validity Challenges Dkt. No. 261 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion In Page 1:8–9 Limine No. 3 Re: Page 2:2–22 Cumulative Expert Page 3:2–3 Testimony Exhibit 1 of the Entire document Declaration Of Laura E. Miller In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 3 Re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Exhibit 2 of the Entire document Declaration Of Laura E. Miller In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 3 Re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Exhibit 3 of the Entire document Declaration Of Laura E. Miller In Support Of 23 (Contains licensing and proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 242.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 262-5/ (261-12) 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 262-6/ (261-14) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dkt. No. 264/ (263-4) 13 14 15 Dkt. No. 264-1/ (263-6) 16 17 18 19 Dkt. No. 264-6/ (263-8) 20 21 22 23 Dkt. No. 264-7/ (263-10) 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 266/ (265-4) Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 3 Re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Exhibit 4 of the Entire document Declaration Of Laura E. Miller In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 3 Re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Exhibit 5 of the Entire document Declaration Of Laura E. Miller In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 3 Re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 263 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Motion In Page 2:25–28 Limine No. 4 re: Page 3:1–3 Excluding Withheld Page 3:7–9 Evidence Page 4:28 Page 5:1 Declaration of Laura E. Page 1:17–19 Miller In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 4 re: Excluding Withheld Evidence Exhibit 5 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 4 re: Excluding Withheld Evidence Exhibit 6 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 4 re: Excluding Withheld Evidence Dkt. No. 265 – GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion in Page 1:20–25 Limine No. 5 re: Page 2:2–3, 7–9 Excluding Hidden 24 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical Hearsay Testimony 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 266-2/ (265-6) 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 273-5/ (267-5) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Dkt. No. 273-6/ (267-7) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 273-7/ (267-9) research and development information. See Dkt. No. 274.) Exhibit 1 to the Entire document GRANTED Declaration of Laura E. (Contains proprietary Miller in support of pharmaceutical Plaintiff’s Motion in research and Limine No. 5 re: development Excluding Hidden information. See Dkt. Hearsay Testimony No. 274.) Dkt. No. 267 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Exhibit E to the Entire document GRANTED Declaration of Thomas P. (Contains proprietary Steindler In Support of pharmaceutical Novartis’s Motions in research and Limine development information. See Dkt. No. 267-1.) Exhibit F to the Page i:11–13 GRANTED IN Declaration of Thomas P. Page 1:3–5, 17, 19–21, 23, PART Steindler In 28 (The following Support of Novartis’s Page 8:2, 4, 28 contains proprietary Motions in Limine Page 9:1–4, 7, 24–28 pharmaceutical Page 10:1, 7–13, 22–24, research and 26–28 development Page 11:4, 7–9 information: Page 15:19 • Page i:11–13 Page 16:12–13 • Page 1:3–5, 17, Page 17:10–12 23, 28 • Page 8:2, 4, 28 • Page 9:1–4, 24– 28 • Page 10:1, 7–13, 22–24, 26–28 • Page 11:4, 7–9 • Page 15:19 • Page 16:12–13 See Dkt. No. 222.) Exhibit G to the Page i:8–9 GRANTED IN Declaration of Thomas P. Page 2:7–9 PART Steindler In Page 5:17–28 (The following Support of Novartis’s Page 6:1, 3–10, 18–22, contains proprietary Motions in Limine 24–28 pharmaceutical Page 7:1–2, 4 research and Page 8:6–13, 18–20 development Page 9:3–4, 6–7, 9–10 information: Page 14:15–17 • Page 6:5–10, 12– 25 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 273-11/ (267-10) 5 6 7 Dkt. No. 272/ (267-4) 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dkt. No. 283/ (282-4) 12 13 14 15 Dkt. No. 286-2/ (285-4) 16 17 18 19 Dkt. No. 286-7/ (285-6) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Dkt. No. 286-9/ (285-8) Page 15:4–5, 7–9, 11, 13– 14 Page 17:4–11, 26–27 Page 21:23–25 Page 22:1–2 Entire document Exhibit K to the Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support of Novartis’s Motions in Limine Novartis’s Motion in Page 1:12–26 Limine No. 5 re: Evidence Page 2:25–26 or Argument Suggesting Damages Should Be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Dkt. No. 282 – DENIED Opposition To Page 2:12–13, 19–20, 23– Plexxikon’s Motion in 24 Limine No. 1 re: Page 3:5–8 Excluding Undisclosed Validity Challenges Dkt. No. 285 – DENIED Exhibit A to the ¶¶ 3, 7, 17, 21, 25, 26, 28– Declaration of Thomas P. 31, 75–78, 115–122, 126, Steindler In Support of 127 Opposition To Plexxikon’s Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Exhibit F to the ¶3 Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support of Opposition To Plexxikon’s Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Exhibit H to the ¶¶ 61–65 Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support of Opposition To Plexxikon’s Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Cumulative Expert Testimony 28 26 22, 24–28 • Page 7:1–2, 4 See Dkt. No. 223.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 Dkt. No. 286-10/ (285-10) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Dkt. No. 288-3/ (287-3) Exhibit I to the ¶¶ 57–59, 77–80 Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support of Opposition To Plexxikon’s Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Cumulative Expert Testimony Dkt. No. 287 – DENIED Exhibit B to the Entire document Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support Of Novartis’s Opposition to Plexxikon’s Motion in Limine No. 4 re: Excluding Withheld Evidence DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (Defendant states, in conclusory fashion, that the document “contain[s] and refer[s] to competitively sensitive documents the public disclosure of which would cause harm to Novartis.” See Dkt. No. 287-1. This generic explanation is insufficient to establish good cause.) Dkt. No. 288-4/ Exhibit C to the Entire document DENIED (287-4) Declaration of (Defendant states, in Thomas P. Steindler In conclusory fashion, Support Of Novartis’s that the document Opposition to Plexxikon’s “contain[s] and Motion in Limine No. 4 refer[s] to re: Excluding Withheld competitively Evidence sensitive documents the public disclosure of which would cause harm to Novartis.” See Dkt. No. 287-1. This generic explanation is insufficient to establish good cause.) Dkt. No. 289 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 290/ Opposition To Page 1:21–23; GRANTED (289-4) Plexxikon’s Motion in Page 2:20–25; (Contains proprietary Limine No. 5 re: Page 3:1–8; pharmaceutical Excluding Hidden Page 5:3 research and Hearsay Testimony development information. See Dkt. 27 1 2 Dkt. No. 290-2/ (289-5) 3 4 5 6 7 Dkt. No. 292/ (291-3) 8 9 Dkt. No. 292-6/ (291-5) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dkt. No. 292-8/ (291-7) 14 15 16 17 Dkt. No. 292-9/ (291-9) 18 19 20 21 22 Dkt. No. 294/ (293-3) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 294-3/ (293-5) Exhibit A to the Entire document Declaration of Thomas P. Steindler In Support of Opposition To Plexxikon’s Motion in Limine No. 5 re: Excluding Hidden Hearsay Testimony Dkt. No. 291 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 2:7–10 Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB Proceedings Exhibit 5 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB Proceedings Exhibit 7 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB Proceedings Exhibit 8 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 1 Re: PTAB Proceedings Dkt. No. 293 – DENIED Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 2:3–5, 11–16 Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 re: Unasserted Patents as Evidence of the Validity of the Asserted Patents Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 re: 28 No. 301.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 1 2 3 Dkt. No. 294-5/ (293-7) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dkt. No. 296-2/ (295-3) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 Dkt. No. 296-3/ (295-5) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Dkt. No. 326/ (297-4) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 326-2/ (297-6) Unasserted Patents as Evidence of the Validity of the Asserted Patents Exhibit 4 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 re: Unasserted Patents as Evidence of the Validity of the Asserted Patents Dkt. No. 295 – DENIED Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Evidence or Argument Mischaracterizing or Having a Tendency to Mislead as to the Scope of Plexxikon’s Patent Rights Exhibit 2 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 3 re: Evidence or Argument Mischaracterizing or Having a Tendency to Mislead as to the Scope of Plexxikon’s Patent Rights Dkt. No. 297 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 1:19–24 GRANTED Novartis’s Motion in Page 2:9, 17–28 (Contains licensing Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Page 3:1–5, 8–20 negotiation, as well as Copying proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 302.) Exhibit 1 to the Entire document GRANTED Declaration of Laura E. (Contains proprietary Miller in Support of pharmaceutical 29 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 326-3/ (297-8) 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 316/ (297-10) 9 10 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Entire document Entire document United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Dkt. No. 298-5/ (297-12) Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Entire document Dkt. No. 298-6/ (297-14) Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Entire document 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Dkt. No. 298-7/ (297-16) 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 298-8/ (297-18) research and development information. See Dkt. No. 302.) GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 302.) GRANTED (Contains licensing negotiation, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 302.) GRANTED (Contains licensing negotiation, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 302.) DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Entire document DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Entire document DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 30 1 2 3 Dkt. No. 327-4/ (299-4) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dkt. No. 327-5/ (299-6) 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dkt. No. 307/ (306-4) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Dkt. No. 307-2/ (306-5) 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 307-3/ (306-7) Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Dkt. No. 299 – DENIED Exhibit 3 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Exhibit 4 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Dkt. No. 306 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Defendant’s Notice of Page:2:25–28 DENIED Motion and Motion to Page 6:25–26 (No supporting Strike Second Page 8:11 declaration filed. See Supplemental Report of Page 9:10, 17–26 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory Page 10:1–14, 24–28 K. Leonard, Ph.D. Page 11:1–14, 16–18 Page 13:4–10 Page 14:22–23 Page 15:1–9, 17–20 Page 16:4, 7–11, 20–22, 24–27 Page 17:1–8 Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED Declaration of Thomas P. (No supporting Steindler In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion To Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Strike Second Supplemental Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Exhibit 2 to the ¶ 59, & n.75 GRANTED Declaration of Thomas P. Figure 4 (Contains licensing 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Steindler In Support Of ¶¶ 75–77, & n.112, 115, negotiation terms. Defendant’s Motion To 117 See Dkt. No. 312.) Strike Second ¶ 79, & n.118 Supplemental Report of ¶¶ 112–114, & n.194 Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory Exhibit 3 (pages 1 and 2) K. Leonard, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 307-4/ Exhibit 3 to the Entire document DENIED (306-8) Declaration of Thomas P. (No supporting Steindler In Support Of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Motion To Strike Second Supplemental Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 314 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 325/ Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 3:16–22, 23–24, 26 GRANTED (314-5) Defendant’s Motion to (Contains trade Exclude Expert Testimony secrets and licensing of Gregory K. Leonard, negotiation terms. Ph.D. See Dkt. No. 314.) Dkt. No. 325/ Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 1:17–18 DENIED (314-5) Defendant’s Motion to Page 2:3–13 (No supporting Exclude Expert Testimony Page 4:6–7 declaration filed. See of Gregory K. Leonard, Page 5:1 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Ph.D. Dkt. No. 325-2/ Exhibit 1 to the Page 29, ¶ 59 GRANTED (314-7) Declaration of Laura E. Page 40, ¶ 79 (Contains trade Miller in Support of Page 41, n.112 secrets and licensing Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 42, n.117, 118 negotiation terms. Defendant’s Motion to Page 44, ¶ 83 See Dkt. No. 314.) Exclude Expert Testimony Page 45, ¶¶ 83–85 of Gregory K. Leonard, Page 46, ¶¶ 85–86, n.132– Ph.D. 134 Page 47, ¶¶ 86–88, n.135 Page 48, ¶¶ 88–89, n.139– 140 Page 58, ¶¶ 102, 104 Page 59, ¶ 104 Page 60, ¶¶ 106–107 Page 61, ¶¶ 107–109, n.185 Page 62, ¶¶ 109–110, n.188 Page 65, ¶¶ 113–114, n.194 Page 66, ¶ 114 Page 81, ¶ 144, n.231 28 32 1 Dkt. No. 325-2/ (314-7) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Page 28, ¶ 57 Page 29, ¶ 60 Page 30, Figure 4 Page 31, ¶¶ 62–63 Page 32, ¶¶ 63–65 Page 33, ¶¶ 65–66, n.88 Page 34, ¶ 68 Page 35, ¶¶ 68–69, n.93, 95 Page 36, ¶ 70 Page 37, ¶ 72 Page 38, ¶¶ 72–73, n.102, 104 Page 39, ¶¶ 73–74, n.107 Page 40, n.110 Page 44, ¶ 81 Page 68, ¶¶ 117–118 Page 69, ¶¶ 119–120 Page 70, ¶¶ 120–121 Page 71, ¶¶ 122–123 Page 72, ¶¶ 124–125 Page 73, ¶¶ 126–127 Page 74, ¶¶ 127–128, n.219 Page 75, ¶¶ 128–131 Page 76, ¶¶ 131–132, n.222 Page 77, ¶¶ 132–135 Dkt. No. 316/ (314-9) Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Re: Alleged Copying Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plexxikon’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Page 44, ¶ 83 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Dkt. No. 327-2/ (314-11) Page 2:20–27 Page 3:1–28 Page 4:1–2, 4–27 Page 5:8–9 33 GRANTED IN PART (The following contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information: • Page 44, ¶ 81 • Page 68, ¶¶ 117– 118 • Page 69, ¶¶ 119– 120 • Page 70, ¶¶ 120– 121 • Page 71, ¶¶ 122– 123 • Page 72, ¶¶ 124– 125 • Page 73, ¶¶ 126– 127 • Page 74, ¶¶ 127– 128, n.219 • Page 75, ¶¶ 128– 131 • Page 76, ¶¶ 131– 132, n.222 • Page 77, ¶¶ 132– 135 See Dkt. No. 330.) GRANTED (Contains trade secret and licensing negotiation terms. See Dkt. No. 314.) GRANTED (Contains trade secret and licensing negotiation terms. See Dkt. No. 314.) 1 Dkt. No. 327-3/ (314-13) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dkt. No. 327-4/ (314-15) 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 Dkt. No. 327-4/ (314-15) 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dkt. No. 327-5/ (314-17) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dkt. No. 327-5/ (314-17) Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plexxikon’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 14:8–10 GRANTED (Contains trade secret and licensing negotiation terms. See Dkt. No. 314.) Page 65, ¶ 113 Page 66, ¶ 114 GRANTED (Contains trade secret and licensing negotiation terms. See Dkt. No. 314.) Page 27, ¶ 56 Page 27–28, ¶ 57 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Exhibits 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 GRANTED (Contains trade secret and licensing negotiation terms. See Dkt. No. 314.) Page 1–2, ¶ 4 Exhibits 5a, 5b, 5c, and 6 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 5 Re: Evidence or Argument Suggesting Damages Should be Awarded for Any Period After December 2018 Dkt. No. 319/ Exhibit 4 to the Page 2:20–27 GRANTED (314-19) Declaration of Thomas P. Page 3:1–28 (Contains trade secret Steindler in Support of Page 4:1–2, 4–27 and licensing Defendant’s Motion to Page 5:8–9 negotiation terms. Strike Second See Dkt. No. 314.) Supplemental Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 319/ Exhibit 4 to the Page 6:2–3 DENIED (314-19) Declaration of Thomas P. (No supporting Steindler in Support of declaration filed. See Defendant’s Motion to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Strike Second Supplemental Report of Plaintiff’s Expert Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. Dkt. No. 332 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 333/ Plaintiff’s Opposition to Page 6:26–27 DENIED (332-4) Novartis’s Motion to Page 16:20–21 (No supporting Strike the Second declaration filed. See Supplemental Report of Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dr. Gregory K. Leonard Dkt. No. 333-4/ Exhibit 3 to the Page 2:20–27 GRANTED (332-6) Declaration of Laura E. Pages 3–4 (Contains trade secret Miller in Support of Page 5:8–9 and licensing Plaintiff’s Opposition to negotiation terms. Novartis’s Motion to See Dkt. No. 332.) Strike the Second Supplemental Report of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard Dkt. No. 333-5/ Exhibit 4 to the Page 14:8–10 GRANTED (332-8) Declaration of Laura E. (Contains trade secret Miller in Support of and licensing Plaintiff’s Opposition to negotiation terms. Novartis’s Motion to See Dkt. No. 332.) Strike the Second Supplemental Report of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard Dkt. No. 333-6/ Exhibit 5 to the Pages 23–24, ¶ 51, n.55 GRANTED IN (332-10) Declaration of Laura E. Page 25, ¶ 53, n.63–64 PART Miller in Support of Pages 27–28, ¶¶ 56–57, (The following 35 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Report of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard 1 2 3 n.72 Pages 34–36, ¶¶ 68–70, n.93, 95 Pages 37–38, ¶¶ 72–73, n.102, 104 Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Novartis’s Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Report of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard Page 41, ¶ 76, n.112 Page 42, n.117–118 Page 58, ¶¶ 102, 104 Page 61–62, ¶¶ 107–110, n.185 Page 65–66, ¶¶ 113–114, n.194 Page 85, ¶ 153 Exhibit 3 (pages 1 and 2) Entire document 4 5 6 7 Dkt. No. 333-6/ (332-10) 8 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 Dkt. No. 333-7/ (332-12) contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information: • Page 25, ¶ 53, n.63–64 • Pages 27–28, ¶ 57, n.72 See Dkt. No. 334.) GRANTED (Contains trade secret and licensing negotiation terms. See Dkt. No. 332.) Exhibit 6 to the DENIED Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Opposition to Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Novartis’s Motion to Strike the Second Supplemental Report of Dr. Gregory K. Leonard Dkt. No. 363 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 364/ Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Page 1:14–15, 20–23 DENIED (363-4) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Page 8:13–17 (No supporting Limine No. 2 Page 9:1–2 declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Dkt. No. 364-2/ Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED (363-6) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 Dkt. No. 364-3/ Exhibit 2 to the Entire document DENIED (363-8) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 Dkt. No. 364-5/ Exhibit 4 to the Entire document GRANTED (363-10) Declaration of Laura E. (Contains proprietary Miller in Support of manufacturing Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof information. See Dkt. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Re: Novartis’s Motion in No. 370.) Limine No. 2 Dkt. No. 364-7/ Exhibit 6 to the Entire document DENIED (363-12) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 Dkt. No. 364-10/ Exhibit 9 to the Entire document DENIED (363-14) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 2 Dkt. No. 366 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 367/ Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Page 16:10 GRANTED (366-5) Re: Novartis’s Motion in (Contains confidential Limine No. 3 sales information. See Dkt. No. 366.) Dkt. No. 367/ Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Page 6:3–11 GRANTED IN (366-5) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Page 11:7–28 PART Limine No. 3 Page 12:1–18 (The following Page 13:1–14 contains proprietary Page 14:6–18 pharmaceutical Page 16:3, 21–22 research and Page 19:18–19, 27 development Page 21:13–20 information: • Page 11:7–28 • Page 12:1–18 • Page 13:1–14 See Dkt. No. 371.) Dkt. No. 367-2/ Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED (366-7) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 3 Dkt. No. 367-3/ Exhibit 2 to the Entire document DENIED (366-9) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 3 Dkt. No. 367-4/ Exhibit 3 to the Entire document DENIED (366-11) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 28 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 3 Dkt. No. 367-5/ Exhibit 4 to the Entire document DENIED (366-13) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 3 Dkt. No. 368 – GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 369/ Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Page 1:9–10 GRANTED IN (368-4) Re: Novartis’s Motion in Page 2:6–9 PART Limine No. 4 Page 3:16–20, 22–25 (The following Page 4:2–7, 11–12, 27–28 contains proprietary Page 5:1, 7–9, 12–16, 17– pharmaceutical 27 research and Page 6:3–6, 12–14, 16–28 development Page 7:1, 4–24, 26–28 information: Page 8:1–5, 13–16 • Page 1:9–10 Page 9:4, 11–16, 18–28 • Page 2:6–9 Page 10:1, 9–13 • Page 3:16–20, Page 11:1–4, 6–16 22–25 Page 12:15–24 • Page 4:2–7, 11– Page 13:1, 4–6, 8–14, 17– 12, 27–28 20, 23–24, 28 • Page 5:1, 7–9, Page 14:1–5 12–27 • Page 6:4–7, 13– 15, 17–28 • Page 7:1–2, 5– 25, 27–28 • Page 8:1–6, 15– 17; • Page 9:20–25, 27–28 • Page 10:1–10, 18–22 • Page 12:26–28 • Page 13:1–8, 11– 13 • Page 14:2–3, 11– 15 • Page 15:6, 14, 19 See Dkt. No. 372.) Dkt. No. 369-2/ Exhibit 1 to the Entire document DENIED (368-6) Declaration of Laura E. (No supporting Miller in Support of declaration filed. See Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) 28 38 1 2 Dkt. No. 369-3/ (368-8) 3 4 5 6 Dkt. No. 375/ (374-4) 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Exhibit 2 to the Entire document Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Offer of Proof Re: Novartis’s Motion in Limine No. 4 Dkt. No. 374 – GRANTED Offer of Proof Relating to Page 10:3–27 Plaintiff’s Motion in Page 11:1–21 Limine No. 1 Page 12:19–21 Page 13:3–18, 21–27 Page 14:1–6, 8–9, 11–20, 22–27 Page 15:1, 3–4, 6–8 Page 21:22–23 Page 22:1–12, 14–26 Page 23:3–4, 7, 9, 21–22, 24–26 Page 24:3, 5, 10, 19–22, 24–26 Page 25:1, 15–25 Page 26:2–6, 8–25 Page 27:1–4, 6–22, 26–28 Page 35:11–27 Page 36:1–26 Page 37:1–13 Page 50:23 Page 51:1–6, 18–20 DENIED (No supporting declaration filed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).) GRANTED (Contains proprietary pharmaceutical research and development information. See Dkt. No. 377.) 18 19 III. CONCLUSION 20 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ administrative 21 motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as 22 to which the administrative motions are granted will remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS the 23 parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, as 24 indicated in the chart above, within seven days from the date of this order. 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3/13/2020 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 39

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?