Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 4, 2020
• Docket: 3:18-cv-00933
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 12 BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, ) C.A. No. 3:18–cv–00933–MMC 13 ) Plaintiff / Defendant–in–Counterclaim, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN 14 ) PART UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE v. ) MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 15 ) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO CYTEK BIOSCIENCES INC., MING YAN, ) CYTEK’S MOTION TO DISMISS; 16 ALFRED RILEY, DAVID VRANE, ) DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF ZHENYU ZHANG, ZHENXIANG GONG, ) 17 ALEX ZHONG, MARIA JAIMES, GIL ) REININ, and JANELLE SHOOK, ) 18 ) Defendants / Plaintiff–in–Counterclaim. ) 19 ) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff Becton, Dickinson and Company’s (“BD”) Unopposed Administrative Motion to 2|| Seal Portions of BD’s Opposition to Cytek’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Opposition”) was brought 3|| before this Court. Upon consideration of the Administrative Motion and the supporting documents submitted therewith, as well as the declaration of Wenbin Jiang, Ph. D., submitted by Cytek, 5|| the Court finds compelling reasons to grant in part BD’s request to file limited portions of its 6 || Opposition and exhibits under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 7 || (9th Cir. 2006). The Opposition and exhibits include “sealable material” as specified by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b)—specifically, material Cytek has shown contains non-public and highly sensitive information about draft technical documents that Cytek created in the course of its business. Fhe 10 Accordingly, under Civil Local Rule 79-5, the Court orders that the following documents, or portions 12|| thereof, be-filed shall remain under seal:

16||| S. Chun in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition | would be impractical. 17 With respect to BD’s Opposition, the Administrative Motion is GRANTED, with the exception of the following portions, as to which the Administrative Motion is DENIED: page 19] 1, lines 16 through 17; page 1, line 23 (beginning with “This is exactly”) through line 25; and page 12, line 28. 21 With respect to Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David S. Chun, the Administrative Motion is DENIED. 23 BD is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, within seven days of the date of this order, Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David S. Chun and a revised redacted version of 25 || its Opposition consistent with the above. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Date: February 4, 2020 7 Akan _ WY, ( hat 28 nf le Maxine Chesney United States District Judge