Hologic, Inc. et al v. SenoRx, Inc

Filing 535

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte denying 525 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal(rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 E-FILED on 2/7/13 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 HOLOGIC, INC. CYTYC CORPORATION and HOLOGIC L.P., No. C-08-0133 RMW 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 SENORX, INC., 17 Defendant. 18 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SENORX'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE ENTIRETY OF EXHIBIT 14 TO THE DECLARATION OF ADAM D. HARBER IN SUPPORT OF SENORX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Re: Dkt. No. 525] 19 20 21 SenoRx moved to file under seal the entirety of Exhibit 14 to the declaration of Adam D. 22 Harber in support of SenoRx's motion for summary judgment on the basis that "Exhibit 14 contains 23 information designated by Plantiffs as 'Highly Confidential'" under the protective order in this case. 24 Mot. 2, Dkt. No. 525. Having reviewed Exhibit 14, the court finds nothing contained therein that is 25 in fact "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." 26 Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Pursuant to the local rule, "[a] stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows 27 a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SENORX'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE ENTIRETY OF EXHIBIT 14 TO THE DECLARATION OF ADAM D. HARBER IN SUPPORT OF SENORX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-08-0133 RMW ALG 1 seal" for that reason alone. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), within 7 days of SenoRx's sealing 2 motion, plaintiff was required to: 3 5 file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated information [in the Protective Order] is sealable, and . . . lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality. If the designating party does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record. 6 Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). Accordingly, the court DENIES the sealing motion, with leave to re-file if any 7 particular portion of Exhibit 14 is indeed a trade secret or otherwise privileged information. 4 8 9 DATED: February 7, 2013 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SENORX'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL THE ENTIRETY OF EXHIBIT 14 TO THE DECLARATION OF ADAM D. HARBER IN SUPPORT OF SENORX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-08-0133 RMW ALG 2

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?