Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al v. Mylan Inc. et al

Filing 156

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 62 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO.,
LTD., et al.,

16
17
18

ORDER DENYING TAKEDA’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiffs,

14
15

Case No.: 13-CV-04001-LHK

v.
MYLAN INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal brought by Plaintiffs Takeda

19

Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A, Inc., and Takeda

20

Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively, “Takeda”). ECF No. 62. Takeda seeks to seal a brief

21

and an exhibit filed in connection with Defendants Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s

22

(collectively, “Mylan”) Partial Motion to Dismiss Takeda’s Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See No. 14-00314, ECF No. 12.

24

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

25

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

26

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

27
28

1
Case No.: 13-CV-04001-LHK
ORDER DENYING TAKEDA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

2

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

4

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

5

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana,

6

447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist

7

“when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

8

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

9

trade secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact,” however, “that the
production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions

12

include Rule 12(b)(1) motions to dismiss. See Hodges v. Apple Inc., No. 13-CV-01128-WHO,

13

2013 WL 6070408, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (“A motion to dismiss is a dispositive

14

motion.”); see also In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1231

15

(9th Cir. 2006) (characterizing “motions to dismiss” as “dispositive motions”).

16

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

17

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

18

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

19

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be

20

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

21

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed

22

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format

23

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of

24

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the

25

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of

26

the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a

27
28

2
Case No.: 13-CV-04001-LHK
ORDER DENYING TAKEDA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material

2

is sealable.” Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).
With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

3
4
5

Motion to Seal
ECF No.
62
62-3

6
7
8
9

62

62-4

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Document to be Sealed
Ruling
Takeda’s Opposition to Mylan’s DENIED WITHOUT
Partial Motion to Dismiss
PREJUDICE because Mylan, as
Takeda’s Complaint
the “Designating Party,” has
failed to “file a declaration as
required by subsection 795(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of
the designated material is
sealable.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1).
Ex. B to the Takahashi
DENIED WITHOUT
Declaration in Support of
PREJUDICE because Mylan, as
Takeda’s Opposition to
the “Designating Party,” has
Mylan’s Partial Motion to
failed to “file a declaration as
Dismiss Takeda’s Complaint
required by subsection 795(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of
the designated material is
sealable.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1).

If Mylan wishes to have these documents filed under seal, Mylan must file a renewed

14

motion to seal, along with its accompanying declaration, within seven (7) days.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: January 14, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 13-CV-04001-LHK
ORDER DENYING TAKEDA’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL