Novadaq Technologies v. Karl Storz GmbH & Co. K.G. et al
Filing
321
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 272 ; granting 280 ; granting 282 ; granting-in-part 293 ; denying 297 ; granting-in-part 302 ; denying 307 ; granting 311 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2015)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
8
Plaintiff,
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO
SEAL
v.
9
10
(Re: Docket Nos. 272, 280, 282, 293, 297,
302, 307, 311)
KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. K.G., et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Before the court are eight administrative motions to seal.1 “Historically, courts have
recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial
records and documents.’”2 Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”3 Parties seeking to seal judicial records
relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling
reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.4
18
19
20
However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain
mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm
their competitive interest.”5 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject
21
22
1
23
2
24
See Docket Nos. 272, 280, 282, 293, 297, 302, 307, 311.
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)).
3
Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
4
Id. at 1178-79.
5
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
1
to the strong presumption of access.6 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions
2
“are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties
3
moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).7 As with dispositive
4
motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing”8
5
that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed.9 “Broad allegations of
6
harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice.10 A
7
protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous
8
determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed,11 but a blanket protective order
9
that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial
10
scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.12
In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to
13
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document
14
is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
15
under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,
16
and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).”13 “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative
17
18
6
See id. at 1180.
19
7
Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
20
8
Id.
21
9
22
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).
23
10
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
24
11
See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.
25
12
26
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.”).
13
Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed
2
Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
1
Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection
2
79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”14
With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:
3
4
Motion
to Seal
Document to be Sealed
Result
Reason/Explanation
5
272
Letter Brief in Opposition
to Novadaq’s Request re:
Heather Arnold
UNSEALED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
272
Exhibit A to the Letter
Brief
UNSEALED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
280
Exhibit C to the Taylor
Declaration
Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 280-4
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
280
6
Exhibit D to the Taylor
Declaration
Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 280-6
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
280
Exhibit E to the Taylor
Declaration
Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 280-8
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each
document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an
“unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the
portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).
14
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
3
Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
1
282
Novadaq’s Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony
from Jesse David
Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 282-4
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
293
Defendants’ Opposition to
Novadaq’s Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony
from Jesse David
Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 293-3 on
pages 10-11, 13-14 SEALED; all
other designations UNSEALED.
Only sealed
designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
297
Novadaq’s Motion for
Leave to File Motion for
Reconsideration of Order
Granting Summary
Judgment of No Willful
Infringement
UNSEALED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
302
Exhibit B to the Taylor
Declaration
Designations highlighted in
black at Docket No. 319-1
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
302
Exhibit C to the Taylor
Declaration
UNSEALED
Designating party has
indicated that
document may be
filed publicly.15
302
Exhibit E to the Taylor
Declaration
UNSEALED
Designating party has
indicated that
document may be
filed publicly.16
302
Exhibit H to the Taylor
Declaration
Designations highlighted in
black at Docket No. 319-2
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
See Docket No. 319 at ¶ 5.
16
See id.
26
27
28
4
Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
1
307
Defendants’ Omnibus
Motion in Limine
UNSEALED
Designated portions
are not confidential
business information.
307
Exhibit 3 to the Lavine
Declaration
UNSEALED
No declaration in
support filed with the
court as required by
Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
311
Novadaq’s Reply in
Support of Motion to
Exclude Expert Testimony
from Jesse David
Designations highlighted in
yellow at Docket No. 311-3
SEALED; all other designations
UNSEALED.
Designated portions
narrowly tailored to
confidential business
information.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2015
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 14-cv-04853-PSG
OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS 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?