Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co, Inc. et al
Filing
132
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting-in-part 124 (psglc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
14
MERCK & CO., INC., et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
(Re: Docket No. 124)
Before the court is an administrative motion to seal two documents. “Historically, courts
have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
19
20
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal judicial records
21
relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling
22
reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. 3
23
However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
24
mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
25
26
1
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).
2
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
3
Id. at 1178-79.
27
28
1
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
1
their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject
2
to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
3
“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving
4
to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the
5
standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific
6
7
8
9
prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm,
unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order
sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to
11
designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether
12
each particular document should remain sealed. 11
13
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
14
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
15
16
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
17
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
18
the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and
19
4
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
20
5
See id. at 1180.
21
6
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
22
7
Id.
23
8
24
Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
9
25
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
10
26
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
11
27
28
See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to
designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or
portions thereof, are sealable.”).
2
Case Nos. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF
ORDER RE: MOTION TO SEAL
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?