ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Santaris Pharma A/S Corp. et al

Filing 208

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 196 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Defendants shall have until December 16, 2013, to file a motion to seal that sets forth the compelling reasons for sealing the specific pieces of information that Defendan ts want sealed. The documents currently lodged under seal at ECF Nos. 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 may remain so lodged until the Court decides Defendants' forthcoming motion to seal. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/9/2013. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ISIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SANTARIS PHARMA A/S CORP., a )
Delaware Corporation, and
)
SANTARIS PHARMA A/S, a Danish )
Corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. )
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-2214-GPC-KSC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(ECF NO. 196)

20
21

Pursuant to this Court’s November 1, 2013 briefing schedule, Defendants filed

22

their renewed motion for summary judgment as to their safe harbor defense on

23

December 6, 2013. (ECF No. 195.) Along with their renewed motion for summary

24

judgment, Defendants filed a motion to file certain documents under seal. (ECF No.

25

196.) In their motion to file under seal, Defendants assert these documents should be

26

filed under seal because they were designated as “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR OUTSIDE

27

COUNSEL ONLY” pursuant to the amended protective order entered June 3, 2013.

28

Notwithstanding the amended protective order’s provision that a motion to file
3:11-cv-2214-GPC-KSC

1

under seal must satisfy “the requirements imposed by applicable law,” (ECF No. 144

2

at 8-9), Defendants do not set forth any legal standard or argument that would justify

3

sealing the documents set forth in their motion to file under seal. See Kamakana v.

4

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a party

5

must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive

6

motion).

7

dispositive motion, the fact that the documents were marked “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR

8

OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” does not, by itself, satisfy the “compelling reasons”

9

standard as to the specific pieces of information that Defendants want sealed. See id.

10

Because the documents Defendants want sealed are in support of a

at 1183-84.

11

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to file under seal, (ECF No. 196),

12

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants shall have until December 16,

13

2013, to file a motion to seal that sets forth the compelling reasons for sealing the

14

specific pieces of information that Defendants want sealed. The documents currently

15

lodged under seal at ECF Nos. 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205 may remain

16

so lodged until the Court decides Defendants’ forthcoming motion to seal.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 9, 2013

19
20

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

3:11-cv-2214-GPC-KSC