Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES Case No. 19-cv-06593-HSG CORPORATION, et al., 8 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ Plaintiffs, AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE 9 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 486 MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Amended Administrative Motion to file documents 14 under seal. Dkt. No. 486. The Court GRANTS the motion to seal documents at docket numbers: 15 249-4; 249-6; 257-8; 257-9; 305-3; 309-7; 309-8; 406-5; 421-10; 421-11; 421-12; 421-13; and 16 421-14. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 7 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 8 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 9 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 10 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 11 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 12 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 13 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 14 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 15 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 16 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 17 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 18 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 19 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 20 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 21 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 22 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 23 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 24 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 The Court GRANTS the parties’ joint sealing request. The Court did not rely on these 27 documents in its orders in this now-closed case, with the consequence that the documents are not 1 11-MD02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest 2 || in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not 3 || have occasion to rule on [the relevant motion].”). Because the documents divulge confidential 4 || personal and business matters unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings 5 in this action, the Court finds that there is compelling reason to file the documents under seal. See 6 Economus vy. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges 8 sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe 9 v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 10 || 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling 11 reasons to seal the exhibit). 1/2 || I. CONCLUSION 5 13 The Court GRANTS Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 486. 14 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 3 15 motion is granted will remain under seal. 2 16

17 || Dated: — 10/2/2023 Aepweol 5 dl □□□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28