1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ACTIAN CORPORATION, Case No. 23-cv-05113-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: SEALING MOTION 9 v. [Re: ECF No. 9] 10 AB SCIEX LLC, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Defendants AB Sciex LLC, AB Sciex LP, and AB Sciex PTE Ltd. (collectively “Sciex”) 14 filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal portions of their Answer, Motion for a 15 Temporary Restraining Order, and a supporting declaration. ECF No. 9. The Court has 16 considered the motion, and its ruling is laid out below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.”

. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 4 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 5 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 As a threshold matter, the Court finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies 8 because Sciex seeks to seal portions of its motion for a temporary restraining order and its answer. 9 See Ctr. for Auto Safety,

n.2 (“Many courts have applied the compelling reasons 10 standard to motions for preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.”); Mickelson v. 11 PGA Tour, Inc., No. 22-CV-04486-BLF,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2022) 12 (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a motion to seal in connection with a motion for a 13 temporary restraining order); Delfino Green & Green v. Workers Compansation Sols., LLC, No. 14 15-CV-02302-HSG,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2015) (applying the “compelling 15 reasons” standard to a motion to seal in connection with an answer and counterclaim). 16 Sciex argues that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of its answer, 17 motion for a temporary restraining order, and its supporting declaration because the highlighted 18 portions contain confidential business information about Sciex’s business strategy and outlook. 19 ECF No. 9 at 4–5. Sciex notes that this information includes the extent to which Sciex’s mass 20 spectrometers run on Analyst, the number of new Sciex mass spectrometers that run on Analyst, 21 the anticipated effect of the termination on Sciex’s customers, and the time and investment it 22 would require for Sciex to run a different software. Id. at 5. Sciex argues that the disclosure of 23 information would put it at a disadvantage in any future licensing negotiations and with its 24 competitors in the mass spectrometry business. Id. Plaintiff Actian Corporation did not file an 25 opposition to the motion. 26 Compelling reasons exist to seal confidential business information, the disclosure of which 27 would cause a party competitive harm. See Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV- 1 “confidential proprietary business, sales, or licensing information, including . . . financial 2 performance and company strategy”); Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878-HSG, 3

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (finding compelling reasons for “confidential 4 business and proprietary information relating to the operations of both Plaintiff and Defendant”); 5 Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 17-cv-00220-LHK,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 6 Jan. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reasons for “information that, if published, may harm [a party’s] 7 or third parties’ competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, contract 8 negotiations, or trade secrets”); In re Elec. Arts, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2008) 9 (finding sealable “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). 10 The Court further finds that Sciex’s redactions are “narrowly tailored to seal only the 11 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 12 The Court rules as follows:

13 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 14 9-3 Defendants’ Answer Highlighted GRANTED as containing Portions confidential business 15 information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 16 harm. 9-4 Defendants’ Motion for Highlighted GRANTED as containing 17 Temporary Restraining Portions confidential business 18 Order information, the release of which would cause a party competitive 19 harm. 9-5 Declaration of Mark Highlighted GRANTED as containing 20 Cafazzo Portions confidential business information, the release of which 21 would cause a party competitive 22 harm. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // Il. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants AB Sciex LLC, 2 AB Sciex LP, and AB Sciex PTE Ltd.’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal related to their 3 Answer and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. 4 5 Dated: October 30, 2023 fasinfncdian 7 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 9 10 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28