Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Filing 241

ORDER GRANTING 197 GENENTECH, INC.'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/17/2016. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

PHIGENIX, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-01238-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

GENENTECH INC,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING GENENTECH,
INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 197]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Before the Court is Genentech’s administrative motion to file under seal Exhibit P to their

13
14
15
16

Motion for Rule 11 sanctions. ECF 197. For the reasons stated below, the motions is GRANTED.
I.

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

17

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

18

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

19

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

20

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

21

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

22

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

23

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

24

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

25

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in

26

part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

27

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

28

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

1
2

sealable.” Id.
II.

DISCUSSION

3

The Court has reviewed Genentech’s sealing motion and declaration in support thereof.

4

The Court finds Genentech has articulated compelling reasons to seal Exhibit P. The proposed

5

redactions are also narrowly tailored. The Court’s ruling on the sealing request is set forth in the

6

table below:

7

Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Exhibit P

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

III.

Description of Documents
Presentation by non-party
ChemPartner LifeScience
entitled “ADC Capability in
ChemPartner,” that contains
confidential business
information related to
ChemPartner’s manufacturing
capabilities and processes
related to the production of
immunoconjugates

Court’s Order
GRANTED

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 197 is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2