Hologic, Inc. et al v. SenoRx, Inc
Filing
536
Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte granting in part and denying in part 530 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (rmwlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2013)
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,
18
ORDER DENYING-IN-PART AND
GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF
PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION AND
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
19
[Re: Dkt. No. 530]
15
v.
16
SENORX, INC.,
17
Defendant.
20
21
22
Plaintiffs moved to file under seal portions of plaintiffs' opposition and exhibits to the
23
Declaration of Maulik Shah in support of plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for summary
24
judgment.
25
Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 12: Having reviewed the entirety of Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 12 the court
26
finds nothing contained therein that is in fact "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
27
entitled to protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Pursuant to the local rule, "[a] stipulation,
28
ORDER DENYING-IN-PART AND GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-08-0133 RMW
ALG
1
or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice
2
to allow the filing of documents under seal" for that reason alone. The court does not agree with
3
SenoRx, see Dkt. No. 534, that Dr. Arthur's deposition testimony, expert report, or supplemental
4
expert report contain any confidential business information. Further, the court disagrees with
5
SenoRx, see Dkt. No. 534, that the excerpt from the deposition of Padraic O'Brien, which pertains
6
primarily to secondary considerations of non-obviousness, particularly long felt need in the industry,
7
contains any confidential or proprietary information. Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs'
8
sealing motion with respect to Exhibits 5-7 and 12 to the Declaration of Maulik Shah in support
9
of plaintiffs' opposition, with leave to re-file if any particular lines of these exhibits contain trade
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
secrets or otherwise privileged or legally protectable information.
Exhibit 9: Having reviewed the designated portions of Exhibit 9 the court finds nothing
12
contained therein that is in fact "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
13
protection under the law." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Pursuant to the local rule, "[a] stipulation, or a blanket
14
protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the
15
filing of documents under seal" for that reason alone. The court does not agree with SenoRx, see
16
Dkt. No. 534, that the designated portions of Dr. Beron's expert report contain any confidential
17
business information.
18
Plaintiffs additionally designated paragraphs 56 and 57 of Exhibit 9 as "internal competitive
19
information of Hologic." Again, the court disagrees that these paragraphs contain privileged or
20
otherwise legally protectable information. These statements go toward demonstrating a "long-felt,
21
but unmet need for the claimed invention," and the content thereof appears to be public information.
22
See, e.g., U.S. Patent 6,482,142 col.2 ll.44-53. Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiffs' sealing
23
motion with respect to all designated portions of Exhibit 9, with leave to re-file if the parties can
24
identify why any of this information is, in fact, legally protectable.
25
Exhibit 21: Exhibit 21 is a written opinion from SenoRx's attorney to SenoRx, which is
26
privileged attorney work product and thus sealable. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). Accordingly, the court
27
GRANTS plaintiffs' motion to seal Exhibit 21.
28
ORDER DENYING-IN-PART AND GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-08-0133 RMW
ALG
2
1
2
DATED: February 7, 2013
3
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING-IN-PART AND GRANTING-IN-PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION AND EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT—No. C-08-0133 RMW
ALG
3
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?