In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedMarch 28, 2025
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. 2025).

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 SEALING ORDER 9 Re: Dkt. No. 330 10 11

12 13 Before the Court are several Administrative Motions to Seal. The Court, having carefully 14 considered the submissions, the record, the applicable law, and any arguments related thereto, 15 hereby GRANTS the Administrative Motions. 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 18 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 19 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 20 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 21 sealable material.” Id. at 79-5(c)(3). A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling 22 reasons” to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 28 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 24 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to 25 inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 26 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 27 1178). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records must 1 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 2 understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The 3 party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 4 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 5 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what 6 constitutes a “compelling reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 7 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling reasons 8 justifying sealing court records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a vehicle 9 for improper purposes” such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, or “as 10 sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto 11 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (sealing 12 trade secret information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment 13 terms” in the parties’ licensing agreement). Records attached to nondispositive motions must 14 meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as 15 such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” 16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80 (quotations omitted). 17 DISCUSSION 18 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to support the filing under seal of the 19 documents or portions thereof listed as “granted” in the following chart and grants the requests to 20 seal these documents or portions thereof where they appear on the public docket. The Court 21 appreciates the efforts of counsel to prepare the chart below, including citations to the relevant 22 docket entries. The Court repeats its admonishment that, while it grants sealing many of the 23 documents presented at this stage, it will be disinclined to permit sealing of materials presented in 24 a public trial. See Omnibus Sealing Order (ECF 233) at 3. 25 26 27 Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ 1 title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for 2 version of sealing sealing 3 Plaintiffs’ Sealing Requests Glubiak Dec. Dkt. 296.7 Dkt. 297.6 Early Larkin Partial The Early Class GRANTED 4 Ex. 6 – Mark Decl., Declaration Early Dkt. includes 5 Declaration 304.1 detailed information 6 about confidential 7 agreements between Larkin 8 and Defendant Intuitive 9 Surgical, Inc.; details about the 10 negotiations that occurred between Larkin 11 and Intuitive related to da 12 Vinci robot repair and 13 replacement, and equipment 14 lease agreements; and 15 detailed information 16 regarding Larkin’s 17 finances and monies paid to 18 Intuitive. Widman Dkt. Dkt. 289.2 Early Larkin Partial This document GRANTED 19 Declaration 288.2 Decl., provides details in Support of Dkt. pertaining to 20 Intuitive’s 304.1 confidential Opposition to agreements and 21 Class negotiations Certification between Larkin 22 and Intuitive. Widman Dkt. 288.3 Dkt. 289.3 Early Larkin Partial This document GRANTED Declaration, Decl., provides details 23 Ex. 1 Dkt. pertaining to 304.1 confidential 24 agreements and negotiations 25 between Larkin and Intuitive. 26 Hospital Dkt. 301- Dkt. 300- Early Larkin Partial These portions GRANTED Plaintiffs’ 1 2; Dkt. Decl., Pg. 5, lines 3-11 of this 27 Response to 313 Dkt. document Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ 1 title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for 2 version of sealing sealing 3 Plaintiffs’ Sealing Requests Surgical, confidential 4 Inc.’s agreements and Objection to negotiations 5 Certain Class between Larkin Certification and Intuitive. 6 Reply Evidence 7 Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ 8 title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for 9 version of sealing sealing 10 Intuitive Sealing Requests Plaintiffs’ Dkt. 267 Dkt. 268.1 Wong Intuitive Pg. 10, redacted See Wong Dec. GRANTED 11 Motion for Dec., price on line 26 ¶ 4, Omnibus Class Dkt. Motion to Seal 12 Certification 304.2 Pg. 17-18, at Section III.B redacted pricing 13 policy and pricing figures 14 on lines 17:27- 18:24 15 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 16 J. Dominguez 304.2 at Section III.B (Elhauge Page 110, n. 17 Class 497 – Contract Report) Prices 18 Page 111, 19 paragraph 219 and Figure 10 – 20 Pricing figures

21 Page 112, paragraph 220, 22 Figure 11, and n. 504 – Pricing 23 and Revenue Figures, 24 Contract Prices

25 Page 113, paragraph 221 – 26 Gross margin figures

27 Page 114, Document or Dkt. of Dkt. of Dkt. of Party Sealing sought Brief Granted/ 1 title or publicly- sealed decl. in seeking statement of Denied description filed version support sealing reason for 2 version of sealing sealing 3 Intuitive Sealing Requests paragraph 222 – 4 Margin figures

5 Page 128, paragraph 252 6 and n.582 – Customer 7 identities

8 Page 148, ns. 677, 678, 680, 9 681, 683 – Customer 10 identities

Page 160, 11 paragraph 317 – Pricing figures 12 Page 171, 13 paragraph 340 – Pricing figures 14 Page 172, 15 paragraph 341 – Pricing figures 16 Pages 173–74, 17 paragraph 346 – Margin figures 18 Page 174, 19 paragraph 347 and n.809 – 20 Margin figures

21 Page 182, paragraph 368 – Customer 22 identity

23 Page 186, n.863 – Customer 24 identities

25 Page 191, paragraph 393 – 26 Pricing figures

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)
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)

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-2025.