From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Novadaq Techs. Inc. v. Karl Storz GMBH & Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Jun 16, 2015
Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG

06-16-2015

NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES INC., Plaintiff, v. KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. KG and KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY-AMERICA, INC. Defendants.


ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

(Re: Docket Nos. 100, 106, 115)

Before the court are three administrative motions to seal 31 documents. "Historically, courts have recognized a 'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, "a 'strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point." Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with "compelling reasons" that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)).

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

Id. at 1178-79.

However, "while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest." Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action," parties moving to seal must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c). As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a "particularized showing" that "specific prejudice or harm will result" if the information is disclosed. "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning" will not suffice. A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court's previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

See id. at 1180.

Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Id.

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) ("Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.").

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is "sealable," or "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law." "The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d)." "Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable."

Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a "proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material" which "lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed," Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an "unredacted version of the document" that indicates "by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d).

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
--------

With these standards in mind, the court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion toSeal

Document to be Sealed

Result

Reason/Explanation

Docket No.100-3

Novadaq's Opposition toDefendant's Motion forProtective Order RegardingDr. Storz

4:10-15 and 14:16-19SEALED. All otherhighlighted designationsUNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessor trade secretinformation.

Docket No.100-5

Exhibit 1 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-6

Exhibit 2 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-7

Exhibit 3 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-8

Exhibit 4 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.



Docket No.100-9

Exhibit 5 to the ForanDeclaration

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessor trade secretinformation.

Docket No.100-10

Exhibit 6 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-11

Exhibit 7 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-12

Exhibit 8 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-13

Exhibit 9 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-14

Exhibit 10 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-15

Exhibit 11 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-16

Exhibit 12 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-17

Exhibit 13 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-18

Exhibit 17 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No.100-19

Exhibit 18 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).



Docket No.100-20

Exhibit 19 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No.100-21

Exhibit 20 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-22

Exhibit 21 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-23

Exhibit 22 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-24

Exhibit 23 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-25

Exhibit 24 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-26

Exhibit 25 to the ForanDeclaration

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessor trade secretinformation.

Docket No.100-27

Exhibit 26 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-29

Exhibit 28 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

Not narrowly tailoredto confidentialbusiness or tradesecret information.

Docket No.100-30

Exhibit 29 to the ForanDeclaration

Doc. 1, Doc. 2., Doc. 3. andDoc. 4 SEALED. All otherportions UNSEALED.

Only sealed portionsnarrowly tailored toconfidential businessor trade secretinformation.

Docket No.106-5

Novadaq's Opposition toKarl Storz's Motion forLeave To File Its Amended

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required by



Answer and Counterclaims

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No.106-7

Exhibit 4 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No.106-8

Exhibit 6 to the ForanDeclaration

UNSEALED.

No declaration insupport filed with thecourt as required byCiv. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Docket No.115-2

Karl Storz's Reply inSupport of Motion forLeave to File its AmendedAnswer and Counterclaims

Designations highlighted inyellow SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.

Docket No.115-3

Exhibit B to the WelshDeclaration

SEALED.

Narrowly tailored toconfidential businessinformation.


Within seven days, the designating party may file a more narrowly tailored motion to file under seal. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 79-5, a proposed order must contain a chart specifically showing what the party seeks to seal. An unredacted version must contain highlighting showing the court what the designating party seeks to seal within that document. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 16, 2015

/s/_________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Novadaq Techs. Inc. v. Karl Storz GMBH & Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Jun 16, 2015
Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Novadaq Techs. Inc. v. Karl Storz GMBH & Co.

Case Details

Full title:NOVADAQ TECHNOLOGIES INC., Plaintiff, v. KARL STORZ GMBH & CO. KG and KARL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 16, 2015

Citations

Case No. 5:14-cv-04853-PSG (N.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2015)