Vaccine Center, LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al

Filing 177

ORDER that the 169 Motion to Seal is Denied in large part and Granted in limited part. No later than 9/25/2014, Defendant Apexus shall file publicly on the docket a notice attaching the relevant exhibits, except that it may redact Section 10.A of Exhibit B. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 9/22/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
THE VACCINE CENTER LLC,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01849-JCM-NJK
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART MOTION
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 169)

Pending before the Court is a motion to seal. Docket No.169. Defendant Apexus filed a

17

declaration in support of the motion. Docket No. 172. Defendant GlaxoSmithKline filed a notice

18

taking no position on the motion. Docket No. 173. Plaintiff opposed the motion. Docket No. 174.

19

Defendant Apexus filed a supplemental brief responding to Plaintiff’s opposition. Docket No. 176.

20

The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the

21

reasons discussed below, the motion to seal is DENIED in large part and GRANTED in limited

22

part.

23

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and

24

records, and that parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive

25

motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.”

26

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). To the extent any

27

confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to

28

the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents.

1

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also In re Roman

2

Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court

3

must “keep in mind the possibility of redacting the sensitive material”)

4

Defendant Apexus’ most recent filing agrees to allow the exhibits at issue to be filed

5

publicly, except that it maintains that redaction to Section 10.A of Exhibit B is proper. See Docket

6

No. 176 at 2. That section provides for Apexus’ property and commercially sensitive administrate

7

fee calculation, the disclosure of which Apexus argues would impede its ability to negotiate and

8

enter agreements with suppliers. See Docket No. 172 at 7. The Court finds compelling reasons exist

9

for redaction of Section 10.A of Exhibit B. Compelling reasons have not been established as to any

10

other part of the relevant exhibits. Accordingly, no later than September 25, 2014, Defendant

11

Apexus shall file publicly on the docket a notice attaching the relevant exhibits, except that it may

12

redact Section 10.A of Exhibit B.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

DATED: September 22, 2014

15
16
17

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2