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)

Download PDF
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?