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

Filing 235

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 228 Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/14/2014. (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 PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(ECF NO. 228)

20
21

Pursuant to the Court’s November 1, 2013 briefing schedule, (ECF No. 194),

22

Defendants filed their renewed motion for summary judgment as to their safe harbor

23

defense on December 6, 2013, (ECF No. 195), and Plaintiff filed its untimely response

24

thereto on January 11, 2014, (ECF No. 223). Along with its response, Plaintiff filed

25

a motion to seal various documents in support of its response. (ECF No. 228.)

26

The Court has entered an amended protective order governing discovery in this

27

case. (ECF No. 144.) Notwithstanding the amended protective order’s provision that

28

a motion to seal must satisfy “the requirements imposed by applicable law”—and
3:11-cv-2214-GPC-KSC

1

despite this Court’s previous denial of a cursory motion to seal—Plaintiff has not set

2

forth any legal standard or argument that would justify sealing the documents described

3

in its motion to seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179

4

(9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal

5

judicial records attached to a dispositive motion). Because the documents Plaintiff

6

wants sealed pertain to a dispositive motion, the fact that the documents were marked

7

“CONFIDENTIAL-FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” does not, by itself, satisfy the

8

“compelling reasons” standard as to the specific pieces of information that Plaintiff

9

wants sealed. See id. at 1183-84. It is clear that Plaintiff does not want sealed the

10

entirety of every document listed in its motion to seal because Plaintiff has publicly

11

filed redacted versions of several of these documents. Moreover, the Court has not

12

received a proposed order on Plaintiff’s motion to seal as required by section 2(j)(1)(c)

13

of the Court’s ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.

14

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal, (ECF No. 228), is DENIED

15

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have up to and including January 20, 2014,

16

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

17

specific pieces of information that Plaintiff wants sealed. Pursuant to Section 2(j) of

18

this District’s ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, the documents

19

currently lodged at ECF Nos. 229, 230, 231, 232, and 233 “will remain lodged under

20

seal without further consideration” unless and until Plaintiff files a renewed motion to

21

seal that sets forth the “compelling reasons” for sealing the specific pieces of

22

information that Plaintiff wants sealed.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 14, 2014

25
26

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

27
28
2

3:11-cv-2214-GPC-KSC