United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL RE: DKT. NOS. 76, 79
JAMES
DONATO United States District Judge
In our
circuit, in evaluating a motion to seal, two different
standards apply depending on whether the request is being
made in connection with a dispositive motion or a
non-dispositive motion.
For
dispositive motions, the historic, “strong presumption
of access to judicial records” fully applies, and a
party seeking sealing must establish “compelling
reasons” to overcome that presumption. Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th
Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.
Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). This standard
presents a “high threshold, ” and “a
‘good cause' showing will not, without more,
satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted).
When ordering sealing in this context, the district court
must also “articulate the rationale underlying its
decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar
Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).
The
non-dispositive motion context is different. There,
“the usual presumption of the public's right of
access is rebutted, ” the “public has less of a
need for access to court records attached only to
non-dispositive motions, ” and the “public
policies that support the right of access to dispositive
motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force
to non-dispositive materials.” Kamakana, 447
F.3d at 1179-80 (citations omitted). In that context,
materials may be sealed so long as the party seeking sealing
makes a “particularized showing” under the
“good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331
F.3d at 1138). In either case, however, “[a]n
unsupported assertion of ‘unfair advantage' to
competitors without explaining ‘how a competitor would
use th[e] information to obtain an unfair advantage' is
insufficient.” Hodges v. Apple, Inc., No.
13-cv-01128-WHO, 2013 WL 6070408, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18,
2013) (quoting Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No.
5:12-cv-003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
18, 2013)).
In our
district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard
under Kamakana, all parties requesting sealing must
also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including that
rule's requirement that the request must
“establish[] that the document, or portions thereof,
are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law, ” i.e.,
is “sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing
request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material.” Id.
I.
DISCUSSION
The
pending motion to seal is associated with a non-dispositive
motion for leave to amend infringement contentions, so the
“good cause” standard applies.
Dkt. No.
|
Portion of Document Sealed
|
Reason for Sealing
|
Ruling
|
75-1
|
Pages 2-4
|
-Confidential information about cell lines that
defendants have developed.
-Confidential third-party information, the disclosure
of which may violate confidentiality provisions in
defendants' agreements with their clients and
cause competitive and financial harm to defendants by
allowing their competitors insight into
defendants' research and development strategies
and efforts.
|
Granted.
|
75-2
|
Pages 2-4
|
-Confidential information about cell lines that
defendants have developed.
-Confidential third-party information, the disclosure
of which may violate confidentiality provisions in
defendants' agreements with their clients and
cause competitive and financial harm to defendants by
allowing their competitors insight into
defendants' research and development strategies
and efforts.
|
Granted.
|
75-1
|
Pages 7-10
|
-Confidential information about cell lines that
plaintiffs and their licensees have developed,
including confidential antibody names and targets.
-Reveals confidential information regarding
third-party licensees of plaintiffs'
POTELLIGENT® technology, the disclosure of which
may violate confidentiality provisions in
plaintiffs' agreements with their licensees and
cause competitive and financial harm to plaintiffs by
allowing their competitors insight into
plaintiffs' research and development strategies
and efforts.
|
Granted.
|
75-2
|
Pages 7-10
|
-Confidential information about cell lines that
plaintiffs and their licensees have developed,
including confidential antibody names and targets.
-Confidential information about third-party licensees
of plaintiffs' POTELLIGENT® technology, the
disclosure of which may violate confidentiality
provisions in plaintiffs' agreements with their
licensees and cause competitive and financial harm to
plaintiffs by allowing their competitors insight into
plaintiffs' research and development strategies
and efforts.
|
Granted.
|