Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PLEXXIKON INC., Case No. 17-cv-04405-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS 10 NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS TO SEAL CORPORATION, 11 Re: Dkt. No. 394 Defendant.

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc.’s administrative motion for leave to move for reconsideration of its motions to seal. Dkt. No. 394. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 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” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 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 . . . .” Civil L.R. 79- 5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC- MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”); Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015).

17 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 24 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

25 II. DISCUSSION 26 Plaintiff Plexxikon Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation filed a number of administrative motions to file under seal in connection with their summary judgment, Daubert, these motions. See Dkt. No. 386. Plaintiff now requests that the Court reconsider this order regarding four specific documents: 4 • Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support of Defendant’s Motion to 5 Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D., Dkt. No. 202-3; 6 • Excerpts of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert 7 Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D. (“Leonard Daubert Opposition”), Dkt.

8 No. 325; 9 • Excerpts of Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of the 10 Leonard Daubert Opposition, Dkt. No. 325-2; and 11 • Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to 12 Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of James E. Malackowski, Dkt. No. 169-2.

14 Plaintiff acknowledges that it belatedly filed declarations to establish that these documents contain sealable information regarding Plaintiff’s trade secrets and licensing information. See Dkt. Nos. 314-2, 394-1.

17 Having considered these declarations and Plaintiff’s argument, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met the standard for reconsideration pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-9(b). The Court applies the lower good cause standard for these documents because they relate to the parties’ Daubert motions. The Court finds that Plaintiff has narrowly tailored its requested redactions to confidential and proprietary licensing information. The public release of these documents could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in future licensing negotiations with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s business partners. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (ordering sealing where documents could be used “‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established good cause to seal the documents as detailed in the table below. See, e.g., Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 |} CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012). || Public/ (Sealed be Sealed 4 Dkt. No. 202-3/ Exhibit 2 to the Page 40, 75-76 The excerpts (Dkt. No. 201-6) | Declaration of Tom | Page 41,976 & contain trade secret and 5 Steindler in Support | footnotes 112, 114, disclose highly confidential of Defendant’s & 115 licensing information. See 6 Motion to Exclude | Page 42, footnotes Dkt. No. 314-2.

7 Expert Testimony 117 & 118 of Gregory K.

8 Leonard, Ph.D.

9 Dkt. No. 325/ Leonard Daubert Page 3, lines 16-22, | The excerpts (Dkt. No. 224-4) | Opposition 23-24, and 26 contain trade secret and 10 disclose highly confidential 11 licensing information. See Dkt. No. 394-1.

3 12 Dkt. No. 325-2/ Exhibit | to the Page 29, 59 The excerpts (Dkt. No. 224-6) | Declaration of Page 40, § 79 contain trade secret and € 13 Laura E. Millerin | Page 41, footnote disclose highly confidential “4 Support of the 112 licensing information. See Leonard Daubert Page 42, footnotes Dkt. No. 394-1.

Opposition 117 & 118 Page 44, ¥ 83 a 16 Page 45, {83-85 Page 46, {J 85-86, = 17 footnotes 18 132-134 Page 47, {J 86-88, 19 footnote 135 Page 48, {J 88-89, 20 footnotes 139-140 21 Page 58, § 102, 4 104 Page 59, 7 104 Page 60, 106-107 23 Page 61, §§ 107-109, footnote 24 185 Page 62, §§ 109-110, 25 footnote 6 188 Page 65, ff 113-114, footnote 28 Page 66, § 114 1 Docket No. Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling Public/ (Sealed be Sealed 2 Page 81, 4 144, footnote 231 3 Dkt. No. 169-2/ Exhibit | to the Page 101, text The excerpts (Dkt. No. 168-4) | Declaration of Page 102, text & contain trade secret and 4 Laura E. Millerin | footnote 481 disclose highly confidential 5 Support of licensing information. See Plaintiff's Motion Dkt. No. 314-2.

6 to Exclude the Opinions and 7 Testimony of James 8 E. Malackowski 11 Il. CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and orders as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff need not file public versions of the Leonard Daubert Opposition and it 1 m support thereof, properly redacted versions of which are filed at . Nos. an || Exhibit 11 thereof, ly redacted 1 f which are filed at Dkt. Nos. 325 and 15 |} 325-2, respectively; A 16 2. The Court directs the clerk to remove Dkt. No. 393-30 from the publicly-available = = 17 || docket; and 18 3. Plaintiff is authorized to file public, redacted versions of Exhibit 1 to the || Declaration of Laura E. Miller in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude the Opinions and || Testimony of James E. Malackowski and Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Tom Steindler in Support 21 of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Gregory K. Leonard, Ph.D., in lieu of || public, unredacted versions of these documents. Plaintiff shall file these redacted documents || within seven days from the date of this order.

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 || Dated: March 31, 2021 26 7 Mapurred 3. Ad, hh.

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 27 United States District Judge