In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 28, 2025·No. 3:21-cv-03825·Unknown

Opinion

IN RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT Case No. 21-cv-03825-AMO ANTITRUST LITIGATION OMNIBUS SEALING ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 330

Before the Court are several Administrative Motions to Seal. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions, the record, the applicable law, and any arguments related thereto, hereby GRANTS the Administrative Motions. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Id. at 79-5(c)(3). A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling reasons” to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 28 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records must history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what constitutes a “compelling reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling reasons justifying sealing court records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes” such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, or “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing trade secret information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” in the parties’ licensing agreement). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (quotations omitted). The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to support the filing under seal of the documents or portions thereof listed as “granted” in the following chart and grants the requests to seal these documents or portions thereof where they appear on the public docket. The Court appreciates the efforts of counsel to prepare the chart below, including citations to the relevant docket entries. The Court repeats its admonishment that, while it grants sealing many of the documents presented at this stage, it will be disinclined to permit sealing of materials presented in a public trial. See Omnibus Sealing Order (ECF 233) at 3. Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for version of sealing sealing Plaintiffs’ Sealing Requests Glubiak Dec. Dkt. 296.7 Dkt. 297.6 Early Larkin Partial The Early Class GRANTED Ex. 6 – Mark Decl., Declaration Early Dkt. includes Declaration 304.1 detailed information about confidential agreements between Larkin and Defendant Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; details about the negotiations that occurred between Larkin and Intuitive related to da Vinci robot repair and replacement, and equipment lease agreements; and detailed information regarding Larkin’s finances and monies paid to Intuitive. Widman Dkt. Dkt. 289.2 Early Larkin Partial This document GRANTED Declaration 288.2 Decl., provides details in Support of Dkt. pertaining to Intuitive’s 304.1 confidential Opposition to agreements and Class negotiations Certification between Larkin and Intuitive. Widman Dkt. 288.3 Dkt. 289.3 Early Larkin Partial This document GRANTED Declaration, Decl., provides details Ex. 1 Dkt. pertaining to 304.1 confidential agreements and negotiations between Larkin and Intuitive. Hospital Dkt. 301- Dkt. 300- Early Larkin Partial These portions GRANTED Plaintiffs’ 1 2; Dkt. Decl., Pg. 5, lines 3-11 of this Response to 313 Dkt. document Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for version of sealing sealing Plaintiffs’ Sealing Requests Surgical, confidential Inc.’s agreements and Objection to negotiations Certain Class between Larkin Certification and Intuitive. Reply Evidence Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for version of sealing sealing Intuitive Sealing Requests Plaintiffs’ Dkt. 267 Dkt. 268.1 Wong Intuitive Pg. 10, redacted See Wong Dec. GRANTED Motion for Dec., price on line 26 ¶ 4, Omnibus Class Dkt. Motion to Seal Certification 304.2 Pg. 17-18, at Section III.B redacted pricing policy and pricing figures on lines 17:27- 18:24 Ex. 1 to the Dkt. 267.2 Dkt. 268.2 Wong Intuitive Page 105, See Wong Dec. GRANTED Declaration Dec., Figure 9 – ¶ 4, Omnibus of Manuel Dkt. Pricing Figures Motion to Seal J. Dominguez 304.2 at Section III.B (Elhauge Page 110, n. Class 497 – Contract Report) Prices Page 111, paragraph 219 and Figure 10 – Pricing figures

Page 112, paragraph 220, Figure 11, and n. 504 – Pricing and Revenue Figures, Contract Prices

Page 113, paragraph 221 – Gross margin figures

Page 114, Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for version of sealing sealing Intuitive Sealing Requests paragraph 222 – Margin figures

Page 128, paragraph 252 and n.582 – Customer identities

Page 148, ns. 677, 678, 680, 681, 683 – Customer identities

Page 160, paragraph 317 – Pricing figures Page 171, paragraph 340 – Pricing figures Page 172, paragraph 341 – Pricing figures Pages 173–74, paragraph 346 – Margin figures Page 174, paragraph 347 and n.809 – Margin figures

Page 182, paragraph 368 – Customer identity

Page 186, n.863 – Customer identities

Page 191, paragraph 393 – Pricing figures

Page 192, paragraph 394 Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for version of sealing sealing Intuitive Sealing Requests and n. 889 – Pricing figures

Page 198, paragraph 405 – Pricing figures

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. 2025).

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)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
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)
Electronic Arts, Inc. v. United States District Court
298 F. App'x 568 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)