Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00933/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00933-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

 CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00933-MMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff / Defendant–in–Counterclaim,

 v. 

CYTEK BIOSCIENCES INC., MING YAN, 

ALFRED RILEY, DAVID VRANE, 

ZHENYU ZHANG, ZHENXIANG GONG, 

ALEX ZHONG, MARIA JAIMES, GIL 

REININ, and JANELLE SHOOK, 

 Defendants / Plaintiff–in–Counterclaim. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C.A. No. 3:18–cv–00933–MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN

PART UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO 

CYTEK’S MOTION TO DISMISS;

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF 

Case 3:18-cv-00933-MMC Document 161 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

CASE NO. 3:18-CV-00933-MMC

Plaintiff Becton, Dickinson and Company’s (“BD”) Unopposed Administrative Motion to 

Seal Portions of BD’s Opposition to Cytek’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Opposition”) was brought 

before this Court. Upon consideration of the Administrative Motion and the supporting documents 

submitted therewith, as well as the declaration of Wenbin Jiang, Ph. D., submitted by Cytek,

the Court finds compelling reasons to grant in part BD’s request to file limited portions of its 

Opposition and exhibits under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 

(9th Cir. 2006). The Opposition and exhibits include “sealable material” as specified by Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(b)—specifically, material Cytek has shown contains non-public and highly sensitive 

information about draft technical documents that Cytek created in the course of its business. The 

Court further finds that BD’s proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to cover only sealable material. 

Accordingly, under Civil Local Rule 79-5, the Court orders that the following documents, or portions 

thereof, be filed shall remain under seal: 

Document Portions to be filed under seal 

BD’s Opposition to Cytek’s Motion to Dismiss Highlighted portions for redaction 

Exhibits 1, 3, & 4 to the Declaration of David 

S. Chun in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition

Documents in its their entirety; redaction 

would be impractical. 

With respect to BD’s Opposition, the Administrative Motion is GRANTED, with the 

exception of the following portions, as to which the Administrative Motion is DENIED: page 

1, lines 16 through 17; page 1, line 23 (beginning with “This is exactly”) through line 25; and 

page 12, line 28.

With respect to Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David S. Chun, the Administrative 

Motion is DENIED.

BD is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, within seven days of the date of 

this order, Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David S. Chun and a revised redacted version of 

its Opposition consistent with the above.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: __________, 2020 _______________________________________

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney 

United States District Judge

February 4 _______________________________ Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-00933-MMC Document 161 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2