Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Filing 452

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING Dkt. No. 394 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion for Leave to Move for Reconsideration of Motions to Seal. (hsglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2021)

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.

Case No. 17-cv-04405-HSG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS
TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 394

12
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc.’s administrative motion for leave to

13
14

move for reconsideration of its motions to seal. Dkt. No. 394. For the reasons detailed below, the

15

Court GRANTS the motion.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

18

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

19

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the

20

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records

21

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of

22

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion

24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27

omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

28

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a

1

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

2

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.

3

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records

4

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,

5

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

6
7

to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are

8

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The

9

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 795(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies”

12

satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-

13

MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information

14

“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”);

15

Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal.

16

June 30, 2015).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

17
18

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

19

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This

20

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information

21

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

22

Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

23

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

24

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

25
26

II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation filed a number of

27

administrative motions to file under seal in connection with their summary judgment, Daubert,

28

and in limine motions. The Court issued an omnibus order granting in part and denying in part
2

1

these motions. See Dkt. No. 386. Plaintiff now requests that the Court reconsider this order

2

regarding four specific documents:

3
4

•

Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D., Dkt. No. 202-3;

5
6

Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to

•

Excerpts of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert

7

Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. (“Leonard Daubert Opposition”), Dkt.

8

No. 325;

9

•

Leonard Daubert Opposition, Dkt. No. 325-2; and

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Excerpts of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of the

•

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to
Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of James E. Malackowski, Dkt. No. 169-2.

12
13
14

Plaintiff acknowledges that it belatedly filed declarations to establish that these documents contain

15

sealable information regarding Plaintiff’s trade secrets and licensing information. See Dkt. Nos.

16

314-2, 394-1.

17

Having considered these declarations and Plaintiff’s argument, the Court finds that

18

Plaintiff has met the standard for reconsideration pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-9(b). The Court applies

19

the lower good cause standard for these documents because they relate to the parties’ Daubert

20

motions. The Court finds that Plaintiff has narrowly tailored its requested redactions to

21

confidential and proprietary licensing information. The public release of these documents could

22

give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in future licensing negotiations with Plaintiff and

23

Plaintiff’s business partners. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)

24

(ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might

25

harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

26

598 (1978)). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause to seal the documents

27

as detailed in the table below. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159

28

CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 113