In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided April 17, 2024·No. 3:21-cv-03825·Unknown

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 SUPERSEDING OMNIBUS ORDER 9 RE: SEALING 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 The Court entered an earlier version of this Order that did not fully address all of the pending 21 administrative motions to seal. This Order incorporates and SUPERSEDES the Court’s Omnibus 22 Order Regarding Sealing dated April 1, 2024. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 25 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 26 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 27 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 1 A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling reasons” to overcome the 2 “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 3 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 4 Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records 5 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 6 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome this strong 7 presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records must “articulate compelling reasons 8 supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the 9 public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial 10 process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The party must make a 11 “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 12 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 13 2002). 14 It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what constitutes a “compelling 15 reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. 16 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling reasons justifying sealing court 17 records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes” 18 such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, or “as sources of business 19 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 20 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing trade secret 21 information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” in 22 the parties’ licensing agreement). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the 23 lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such 24 records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” 25 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (quotations omitted). 26 DISCUSSION 27 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to support the filing under seal of the 1 seal these documents or portions thereof where they appear on the public docket. The Court 2 denies the request to seal any documents or portions thereof (1) listed as “denied” in the following 3 chart or (2) provisionally filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f) because a Party or Third- 4 Party had designated them as confidential or highly confidential under the protective order but that 5 were not included in the below chart because no Party or Third-Party filed a statement or 6 declaration seeking to maintain them under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(f). 7 The Court appreciates the efforts of counsel to prepare the chart below, including citations 8 to the relevant docket entries. The Court notes that, while it grants sealing many of the documents 9 presented at this stage, it will be disinclined to permit sealing of materials presented in a public 10 trial. 11 Documents or Portions Thereof that Intuitive Seeks to Maintain Under Seal 12 Document or Portion of Evidence offered in Objections Ruling 13 Document Sought to be Support of Sealing Sealed1 14 ECF No. 125-2; 125-3 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. Exhibit A - Bass Wong Declaration in Proprietary 15 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business 16 the Motion to Exclude Seal, ¶ 5 information. Einer Elhauge, Exhibit 1 17 (Expert Report of Einer ECF No. 125 Elhauge) Administrative 18 • Page 14, redacted Motion to File Under fn. 55 Seal Materials from 19 Daubert Motions, pg. 20 1-3

21 22 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 28, Figure 6 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 36, Figure 9 Administrative 14 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 15 Daubert Motions, pg. 1-3 16

17 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 DENIED. Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Descriptions of 18 Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to surgical maneuvers the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 are not proprietary. 19 T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No. 125 20 • Page 37, Figure 10 Administrative 21 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 22 Daubert Motions, pg. 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 84, Figure 20 Administrative 7 Motion to File Under Seal Materials from 8 Daubert Motions, pg. 9 1-3 ECF No. 125-4 ECF No. 125-1 GRANTED. 10 Exhibit B - Chaput Wong Declaration in Proprietary Declaration in Support of Support of Motion to business 11 the Motion to Exclude Dr. Seal, ¶ 6 information. T. Kim Parnell, Ex. 8 12 (Howe 1/18/23 Larkin Rpt) ECF No.

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

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

In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation (In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Watkins Ex Rel. Watkins v. Watkins
22 S.W.2d 1 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1929)
Southern Style Shops, Inc. v. Mann
4 S.W.2d 959 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1928)
Electronic Arts, Inc. v. United States District Court
298 F. App'x 568 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)