Filed: Oct. 26, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL [Re: ECF 256, 272] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are the parties' administrative motions to file certain documents under seal. ECF 256, 272. Defendant filed a motion to seal an exhibit in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on Inadequate Written Description and Anticipation. ECF 256. Plaintiff moved to seal portions of its memorandum regarding test results and a related exhibit. ECF 272. For the reasons stat
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL [Re: ECF 256, 272] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Before the Court are the parties' administrative motions to file certain documents under seal. ECF 256, 272. Defendant filed a motion to seal an exhibit in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on Inadequate Written Description and Anticipation. ECF 256. Plaintiff moved to seal portions of its memorandum regarding test results and a related exhibit. ECF 272. For the reasons state..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL
[Re: ECF 256, 272]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Before the Court are the parties' administrative motions to file certain documents under seal. ECF 256, 272. Defendant filed a motion to seal an exhibit in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on Inadequate Written Description and Anticipation. ECF 256. Plaintiff moved to seal portions of its memorandum regarding test results and a related exhibit. ECF 272. For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City and Cnty. 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)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097.
In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." 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." Id.
II. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties' sealing motions and the declaration in support thereof, if any. For both these motions, Plaintiff is the party who designated these documents to be confidential but the Court finds that Plaintiff has not articulated compelling reasons to seal these exhibits or the designated portions. General conclusory assertions regarding confidentiality interests are insufficient. The Court's rulings on the sealing requests are set forth in the tables below:
A. ECF 256
Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order
to be Sealed
Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Plaintiff has not filed a declaration in DENIED.
Matthew A. Chivvis in support support of sealing this exhibit.
of Genentech's Motion for
Summary Judgment of
Invalidity Based on Inadequate
Written Description and
Anticipation
B. ECF 272
Identification of Documents Description of Documents Court's Order
to be Sealed
Phigenix, Inc.'s Memorandum Plaintiff contends that the highlighted DENIED.
Regarding Test Results, portions contain confidential test data
highlighted portions at lines obtained for litigation-related testing
13-15 on page 2, lines 3, 8-22, purposes only. However, this is not a
27 on page 3; and lines 1-3, compelling reason for sealing these
10-14 on page 4. portions of the document. For example,
Plaintiff has not demonstrated why
disclosing litigation-related testing results
could harm Plaintiff's competitiveness in
the marketplace. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
809 F.3d at 1097.
Exhibit A to Phigenix, Inc.'s Plaintiff also argues that the entirety of DENIED.
Memorandum Regarding Test this exhibit should be sealed because this
Results relates to confidential test data obtained
for litigation-related testing purposes.
This reason is insufficient. See id.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 256, 272 are DENIED. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
