In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedApril 1, 2024
Docket3:21-cv-03825
StatusUnknown

This text of In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation (In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT Case No. 21-cv-03825-AMO ANTITRUST LITIGATION 8 OMNIBUS ORDER RE: SEALING 9

10 11

12 13 Before the Court are the Parties’ and Third-Parties’ Administrative Motions to Seal, 14 Motions to Consider Sealing Third-Party Materials, Statements in Support of Sealing, 15 Declarations in Support of Sealing, and associated exhibits, at ECF 125, 128, 129, 130, 132, 134, 16 135, 137, 138, 139, 143, 150, 152, 155, 165, 168, 170, 171, 179, 180, 182, 186, 187. The Court, 17 having carefully considered the submissions, the record, the applicable law, and any arguments 18 related thereto, hereby orders that the Administrative Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED 19 in part. 20 LEGAL STANDARD 21 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 22 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 23 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 24 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 25 sealable material.” Id. at 79-5(c)(3). 26 A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling reasons” to overcome the 27 “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1 Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records 2 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 3 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome this strong 4 presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records must “articulate compelling reasons 5 supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the 6 public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 7 process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The party must make a 8 “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 9 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 10 2002). 11 It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what constitutes a “compelling 12 reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. 13 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling reasons justifying sealing court 14 records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes” 15 such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, or “as sources of business 16 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 17 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing trade secret 18 information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” in 19 the parties’ licensing agreement). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the 20 lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such 21 records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” 22 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (quotations omitted). 23 DISCUSSION 24 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to support the filing under seal of the 25 documents or portions thereof listed as “granted” in the following chart and grants the requests to 26 seal these documents or portions thereof where they appear on the public docket. The Court 27 denies the request to seal any documents or portions thereof (1) listed as “denied” in the following 1 Party had designated them as confidential or highly confidential under the protective order but that 2 were not included in the below chart because no Party or Third-Party filed a statement or 3 declaration seeking to maintain them under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f). 4 The Court appreciates the efforts of counsel to prepare the chart below, including citations 5 to the relevant docket entries. The Court notes that, while it grants sealing many of the documents 6 presented at this stage, it will be disinclined to permit sealing of materials presented in a public 7 trial. 8 Documents or Portions Thereof that Intuitive Seeks to Maintain Under Seal 9 Document or Portion of Evidence offered in Objections Ruling 10 Document Sought to be Support of Sealing Sealed1 11 ECF No. 125-2; 125-3 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. Exhibit A - Bass Wong Declaration in Proprietary 12 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business 13 the Motion to Exclude Seal, ¶ 5 information. Einer Elhauge, Exhibit 1 14 (Expert Report of Einer ECF No. 125 Elhauge) Administrative 15 • Page 14, redacted Motion to File Under fn. 55 Seal Materials from 16 Daubert Motions, pg. 17 1-3

18 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Proprietary 19 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 information. 20 T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 21 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No. 125 • Page 28, Figure 6 Administrative 22 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 23 Daubert Motions, pg. 1-3 24

25 26 27 Documents or Portions Thereof that Intuitive Seeks to Maintain Under Seal 1 Document or Portion of Evidence offered in Objections Ruling 2 Document Sought to be Support of Sealing Sealed1 3 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 DENIED. Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Descriptions of 4 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to surgical maneuvers the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 are not proprietary. 5 T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 6 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No. 125 • Page 36, Figure 9 Administrative 7 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 8 Daubert Motions, pg. 9 1-3

10 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 DENIED. Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Descriptions of 11 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to surgical maneuvers the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 are not proprietary. 12 T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 13 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No. 125 • Page 37, Figure 10 Administrative 14 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 15 Daubert Motions, pg. 1-3 16 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. 17 Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Proprietary Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business 18 the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 information. T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 19 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No. 125 20 • Page 84, Figure 20 Administrative Motion to File Under 21 Seal Materials from Daubert Motions, pg. 22 1-3 23 24 25 26 27 Documents or Portions Thereof that Intuitive Seeks to Maintain Under Seal 1 Document or Portion of Evidence offered in Objections Ruling 2 Document Sought to be Support of Sealing Sealed1 3 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Proprietary 4 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 information. 5 T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 6 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No. 125 • Page 88, Figure 21 Administrative 7 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 8 Daubert Motions, pg. 9 1-3

10 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Proprietary 11 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 information. 12 T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 13 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.
435 U.S. 589 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Kregos v. Associated Press
3 F.3d 656 (Second Circuit, 1993)
Electronic Arts, Inc. v. United States District Court
298 F. App'x 568 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-da-vinci-surgical-robot-antitrust-litigation-cand-2024.