Chen v. Illumina, Inc., et al.

Filing 72

ORDER Denying 69 Defendants' Motion to File Under Seal. Defendants' motion to file under seal is denied without prejudice. As such, these documents need not be filed on the public docket and will be returned to the parties. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 10/2/2018. (rmc)

Case 3:16-cv-03044-L-KSC Document 72 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.1948 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

IN RE ILLUMINA, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 3:16-CV-03044-L-KSC
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL [ECF NO.
69]

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16-CV-03044-L-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-03044-L-KSC Document 72 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.1949 Page 2 of 3

1
2

Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to file documents under seal
[ECF No. 69].

3

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public

4

records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner

5

Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion

6

to seal therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto

7

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from “grand jury transcripts

8

and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong

9

presumption applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City

10

and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party

11

seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong

12

presumption of public access by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at

13

1178. Whether a party’s proffered reasons for filing documents under seal are

14

compelling is fact specific and left to the “sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon,

15

435 U.S. at 599. “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s

16

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files

17

might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

18

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

19

trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

20

“While most judicial records are subject to the “compelling reasons” standard,

21

the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access” to court

22

records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

23

“[W]hen a party attaches a sealed discovery document to a nondispositive motion the

24

usual presumption of the public’s right of access is rebutted.” Phillips ex rel. Estates

25

of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). In that instance,

26

“‘good cause’ suffices to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery

27

material.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. For good cause to exist, the the party seeking

28

protection must make a “particularized showing,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, of
1
16-CV-03044-L-KSC

Case 3:16-cv-03044-L-KSC Document 72 Filed 10/02/18 PageID.1950 Page 3 of 3

1

the “specific prejudice or harm” that will result if the information is made public,

2

Phillips, 307 F.3d at 120-11. “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

3

specific examples or articulated reasoning” do not satisfy the good cause standard.

4

Id. at 1211 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476

5

(9th Cir. 1992)).

6

Here, defendants move to file the following under seal: (1) certain portions of

7

defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to plaintiff’s motion

8

to amend [ECF No. 62]; (2) the declaration of Mark P. Gimbel in support of that

9

opposition brief; and accompanying exhibits 1, 2, 8, 15, 17. Defendants solely rely

10

on the parties’ Protective order to justify maintaining the confidentiality of

11

information contained within the above documents which was identified as

12

confidential by plaintiff. Defendants however fail to specify what information in

13

particular has been identified as confidential. This is not enough. Foltz, 331 F.3d at

14

1133 (“[A] party seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order

15

typically does not make the ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect

16

to any particular document.”). It is unclear what information has been earmarked as

17

“Confidential” by plaintiff. While that critical information is left unknown, the Court

18

finds that good cause has not been shown by defendants to summarily file the above

19

documents under seal. Therefore, defendants’ motion to file under seal is DENIED

20

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

21
22
23

As such, these documents need not be filed on the public docket and will be
returned to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Date: October 2, 2018

26
27
28
2

16-CV-3044-L-KSC