Summary
denying a motion to seal where defendant "failed to narrowly tailor its redactions. [Defendant] propose[d] to seal whole pages of the transcript"
Summary of this case from Ridgway v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Opinion
Case No. 12-cv-05501-SI
04-24-2015
VERINATA HEALTH, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART THE PARTIES' MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 208, 216, 225
Currently before the Court are the parties' joint motions to file documents under seal in conjunction with their briefs relating to Defendant's motion to stay. The Court finds that the parties have sufficiently justified sealing with respect to some documents, and failed to justify sealing with respect to others, as discussed below.
LEGAL STANDARD
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are "traditionally kept secret," courts begin their sealing analysis with "a strong presumption in favor of access." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). "A stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal." Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the party seeking to seal must articulate "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non- dispositive motion, a showing of "good cause" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be "narrowly tailored," such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). Because a motion to stay is a non-dispositive motion, the "good cause" standard applies here. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, 2012 WL 2936432, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2012).
DISCUSSION
Here, the parties' briefs and exhibits filed in conjunction with Ariosa's Motion to Stay are non-dispositive. Its adjudication will not affect the substantive claims or defenses of any parties to the litigation. Accordingly, for good cause shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), or lack thereof, the Court concludes as follows:
| Docket No. | Document Title | Court's Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| 208-3 | Redacted Version ofAriosa's Motion toStay Litigation | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that the redactedportions contain confidential business strategy andmethods for business analysis and modelingapproaches regarding Illumina's development ofthe prenatal diagnostics market and Verinata'sprenatal test. The declaration states the publicdisclosure of this information presents asubstantial risk of economic harm and maynegatively impact Illumina's relationships withpotential partners or licensees.After reviewing the unredacted version and theattached declaration, the Court concludes thatIllumina has sufficiently articulated good causefor redacting the portions of Ariosa's Motion toStay Litigation as requested in the declarations.However, in some cases the portions requested inthe declarations do not match the portions in theredacted versions submitted to the Court.Accordingly, the Court STRIKES Docket No.208-3 from the public docket and ORDERSAriosa to file a new redacted version of Ariosa'sMotion to Stay Litigation, consistent with theredactions described in the declaration. |
| 208-5 | Exhibit F | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibitcontains confidential methods used for businessanalysis and modeling approaches to revenues,costs, and pricing in the NIPT market, and that thepublic disclosure of this information maynegatively impact Illumina's relationships withpotential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit F. |
| 208-7 | Exhibit Q | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialbusiness strategy regarding development of theNIPT market. The declaration states that thepublic disclosure of this information maynegatively impact Illumina's relationships withpotential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit Q. |
| 208-9 | Exhibit R | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialbusiness strategy regarding development of theNIPT market, and that the public disclosure of thisinformation may negatively impact Illumina'srelationships with potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit R. |
| 208-11 | Exhibit S | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit isan email chain that contains confidential businessstrategy regarding development of the NIPTmarket, and that the public disclosure of thisinformation may negatively impact Illumina'srelationships with potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit S. |
| 208-13 | Exhibit V | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit is a |
| Dkt. No. 216-5. The Court STRIKES Docket No.216-5 from the public docket and ORDERSAriosa to file a new redacted version of Exhibit 7. | ||
| 216-7 | Exhibit 8 | GRANTED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialand commercially sensitive information aboutAriosa's financials, pricing, and marketingstrategy, including information on Ariosa'scapacity to perform the Harmony Prenatal Test,commercial plan, and detailed financialinformation. The declaration states that the publicdisclosure of this information may result insubstantial competitive harm by providingcompetitors insight into internal finances, pricing,and marketing strategy.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 8. |
| 216-9 | Exhibit 9 | GRANTED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit is anemail conversation that contains confidential andcommercially sensitive information aboutAriosa's pricing and marketing strategy, includinginformation on Ariosa's reimbursement strategy.The declaration states that the public disclosure ofthis information may result in substantialcompetitive harm by providing competitorsinsight into internal pricing, reimbursement, andmarketing strategy that could be used in futuresensitive negotiations.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 9. |
| 216-11 | Exhibit 10 | DENIED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit is aset of questions and answers prepared in advanceof its planned-but-withdrawn IPO that containsconfidential and commercially sensitiveinformation about Ariosa's business, financials,pricing, and marketing strategy, includinginformation on Ariosa's reimbursement strategy,business model, thoughts on competitors, andpipeline. The declaration states that the publicdisclosure of this information may result insubstantial competitive harm by providing |
| competitors insight into internal finances,business plan, and marketing strategy.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court finds that because part ofthe exhibit titled "Legal" is redacted, the Courtcannot ascertain whether the exhibit as a whole issealable. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). | ||
|---|---|---|
| 216-13 | Exhibit 11 | GRANTED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialand commercially sensitive information aboutAriosa's marketing strategy, includinginformation on Ariosa's messaging to potentialproviders. The declaration states that the publicdisclosure of this information may result insubstantial competitive harm by providingcompetitors insight into internal marketingstrategy.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 11. |
| 216-15 | Exhibit 12 | GRANTED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialand commercially sensitive information aboutAriosa's financials, pricing, and marketingstrategy, including Ariosa's financial forecasts.The declaration states that the public disclosure ofthis information may result in substantialcompetitive harm by providing competitorsinsight into internal finances.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 12. |
| 216-17 | Exhibit 13 | GRANTED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit isexcerpts of the deposition transcript of AriosaCFO Daniel Puckett that contain confidential andcommercially sensitive information aboutAriosa's financials, including the manner in whichAriosa tracks costs. The declaration states that thepublic disclosure of this information may result insubstantial competitive harm by providingcompetitors insight into internal finances.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa has |
| sufficiently articulated good cause for redactingportions of Exhibit 13. The Court notes that theredacted version contains different redactionsfrom those sought in its supporting declaration.Dkt. No. 216-17. The Court STRIKES DocketNo. 216-17 from the public docket and ORDERSAriosa to file a new redacted version of Exhibit13. | ||
| 216-19 | Exhibit 15 | GRANTED.The Drake declaration states that this exhibit is anexcerpt of a draft analyst's model that containsconfidential and commercially sensitiveinformation about Ariosa's financials, includingAriosa's financial forecasts. The declarationstates that the public disclosure of this informationmay result in substantial competitive harm byproviding competitors insight into internalfinances and forecasts.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 15. |
| Ariosa's Reply inSupport of Motion toStay Litigation | DENIED.The Walter declaration states that the redactedportions of Ariosa's reply brief containconfidential business strategy, internalprojections, and modeling of the noninvasiveprenatal diagnostics market. The declarationstates that the public disclosure of this informationmay negatively impact Ulumina's relationshipwith current and potential partners or licensees.However, Ariosa did not submit required redactedand unredacted versions of Ariosa's reply briefwith its motion to seal. Because no redacted orhighlighted unredacted versions have beensubmitted, the Court cannot ascertain if theportions the parties wish to file under seal aresealable. | |
| 225-3 | Exhibit 2 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit is aspreadsheet that contains confidential methodsused for business analysis and modelingapproaches to revenues, costs, tests performed,pricing, and profits in the noninvasive prenataldiagnostics market. The declaration states that thepublic disclosure of this information maynegatively impact Ulumina's relationships withcurrent and potential partners or licensees. |
| After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 2. | ||
| 225-5 | Exhibit 3 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration cites Ariosa'sAdministrative Motion to File Under Seal, whichstates that this exhibit is excerpts of a depositionof Ariosa witness David Mullarkey that containsconfidential and commercially sensitiveinformation about Ariosa's internal finances,pricing, marketing, strategy, and IP strategy. Thedeclaration states that the public disclosure of thisinformation may negatively impact Illumina'srelationships with current and potential partners orlicensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclarations, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for redactingportions of Exhibit 3. |
| 225-7 | Exhibit 4 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit isan email between Illumina personnel that containsconfidential business strategy and confidentialmethods for business analysis and modelingapproaches about Illumina's development of theprenatal diagnostics market. The declarationstates that the public disclosure of this informationmay negatively impact Illumina's relationshipswith current and potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Ariosa hassufficiently articulated good cause for redactingportions of Exhibit 4. The Court notes that theredacted version contains different redactionsfrom those sought in its supporting declaration.Dkt. No. 225-7. The Court STRIKES Docket No.225-7 from the public docket and ORDERSAriosa to file a new redacted version of Exhibit 4. |
| 225-9 | Exhibit 5 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this exhibit is achart and notes that contain confidential methodsused for business analysis and modelingapproaches to revenues, costs, fees, and testsperformed in the noninvasive prenatal diagnosticsmarket. The declaration states that the publicdisclosure of this information may negativelyimpact Illumina's relationships with current and |
| potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 5. | ||
| 225-11 | Exhibit 6 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialbusiness strategy regarding the development ofthe prenatal diagnostics market. The declarationstates that the public disclosure of this informationmay negatively impact Illumina's relationshipswith current and potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 6. |
| 225-13 | Exhibit 9 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is aspreadsheet that contains confidential methodsused for business analysis and modelingapproaches as to test volume, fees, costs, sales,expenses, revenues, and profits in the noninvasiveprenatal diagnostics market. The declarationstates that the public disclosure of this informationmay negatively impact Illumina's relationshipswith current and potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 9. |
| 225-15 | Exhibit 10 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is aPowerPoint presentation that contains confidentialbusiness strategy regarding the development ofthe prenatal diagnostics market. The declarationstates that the public disclosure of this informationmay negatively impact Illumina's relationshipswith current and potential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 10. |
| 225-17 | Exhibit 11 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is anexcerpt of the Sale and Supply Agreementbetween Illumina and Ariosa that contains detailsof the structure of the Sale and Supply |
| Agreement, intellectual property and parties'obligation with regard to the intellectual property,and purchases under the agreement. Thedeclaration states that the public disclosure of thisinformation may negatively impact Illumina'srelationships with current and potential partners orlicensees. Ariosa's motion states that theagreement contains a confidentiality provision,and was previous found sealable by this Court.Case No. 14-cv-01921, Dkt. No. 39.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 11. | ||
| 225-19 | Exhibit 12 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is theMaster Supply Agreement between Illumina andLabCorp, and contains the details of the structureof the Master Supply Agreement, intellectualproperty and parties' obligations under theagreement. The declaration states that the publicdisclosure of this information may negativelyimpact Illumina's relationships with current andpotential partners or licensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 12. |
| 225-22 | Exhibit 13 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is theSupply Agreement between Illumina and Quest,and contains the details of the structure of theSupply Agreement, intellectual property andparties' obligations under the agreement. Thedeclaration states that the public disclosure of thisinformation may negatively impact Illumina'srelationships with current and potential partners orlicensees.After reviewing the Exhibit and the attacheddeclaration, the Court concludes that Illumina hassufficiently articulated good cause for sealingExhibit 13. |
| 225-25 | Exhibit 14 | GRANTED.The Walter declaration states that this is theSettlement Agreement between Illumina,Verinata, and Sequenom, and contains the detailsof the structure of the Settlement Agreement,intellectual property and parties' obligations under |
The Court notes that counsel for plaintiffs' unredacted version failed to indicate, "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version" as required by this Court's local rules. Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).
The Court has previously issued the same ruling on a similar motion to seal similar deposition transcripts. Dkt. No. 162.
--------
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), the Court shall not file any documents for which the parties' applications to file under seal have been denied. The submitting party may retain the document and not make it part of the record in the case, or within 7 days re-submit the document for filing in the public record with any necessary amendments that are consistent with this order. The parties' briefs may also be redacted and resubmitted as consistent with the Court's ruling on the documents above. This order resolves all motions to seal under Docket Nos. 208, 216, and 225.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 24, 2015
/s/_________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge