Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01238/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01238-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHIGENIX, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GENENTECH INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01238-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING SEALING 

MOTIONS

Before the Court are parties’ motions to file under seal portions of their briefing and 

exhibits in connection with a motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s Daubert motion. ECF 

374, 377, 386. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motions.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 390 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 

by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during 

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows 

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 390 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 4
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

Because the sealing motions relate to a motion for summary judgment, and motion to 

exclude expert trial testimony, which are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, 

the instant motions are resolved under the compelling reasons standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1101-2 (holding that “public access will turn on whether the motion is more than 

tangentially related to the merits of a case”).

With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

ECF 

No.

Document to be 

Sealed

Result Reasoning

374-4 Defendant 

Genentech Inc.’s 

(“Genentech”) Reply 

ISO its motion for 

summary judgment

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain confidential 

information relating to Genentech’s clinical 

testing and sales data, the disclosure of which 

could harm Genentech’s competitiveness. See 

Kreeger Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 374-1.

377-2 Plaintiff Phigenix 

Inc.’s (“Phigenix”) 

Motion to Exclude 

Genentech’s Expert 

Witness Testimony 

(“Phigenix’ Daubert 

Motion”)

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain confidential 

financial and sales data relating to Kadcyla, 

the disclosure of which could harm 

Genentech’s competitiveness. See Wildman 

Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 370.

377-4 Exhibit 2 to 

Ackerman Decl. ISO 

Phigenix Daubert 

Motion (Excerpts of 

expert report of 

Mark Robbins)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information relating to licensing terms

between Genentech and third parties, the 

disclosure of which could harm Genentech’s 

competitiveness. See Wildman Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 

379.

377-5 Exhibit 3 to 

Ackerman Decl. ISO 

Phigenix Daubert 

Motion (Excerpts of 

Dep. Tr. of Mark 

Robbins)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information relating to licensing terms 

between Genentech and third parties, the 

disclosure of which could harm Genentech’s 

competitiveness. See Wildman Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 

379.

377-6 Exhibit 4 to 

Ackerman Decl. ISO 

Phigenix Daubert 

Motion (Excerpts of 

expert report of 

Gregory Bell)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information relating to licensing terms 

between Genentech and third parties, the 

disclosure of which could harm Genentech’s 

competitiveness. See Wildman Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 

379.

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 390 Filed 08/15/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

377-7 Exhibit 5 to 

Ackerman Decl. ISO 

Phigenix Daubert 

Motion (license 

agreement)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

licensing terms between Genentech and a third 

party, the disclosure of which could harm 

Genentech’s competitiveness. See Wildman 

Decl. ¶ 6, ECF 379.

377-8 Exhibit 6 to 

Ackerman Decl. ISO 

Phigenix Daubert 

Motion (Excerpts of 

Dep. Tr. of Gregory 

Bell)

GRANTED. The entire exhibit contains confidential 

information relating to licensing terms 

between Genentech and third parties, the 

disclosure of which could harm Genentech’s 

competitiveness. See Wildman Decl. ¶ 7, ECF 

379.

386-5 Genentech’s 

opposition to 

Phigenix’ Daubert 

Motion

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain confidential 

information relating to licensing terms and 

royalty rates between Genentech and third 

parties, the disclosure of which could harm 

Genentech’s competitiveness. See Wildman 

Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 386-2.

386-7 Exhibit 1 to Kreeger 

Decl. (“Expert 

Report of Mark 

Robbins”)

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain confidential 

information relating to licensing terms and 

royalty rates between Genentech and third 

parties, the disclosure of which could harm 

Genentech’s competitiveness. See Wildman 

Decl. ¶ 5, ECF 386-2.

386-9 Exhibit 4 to Kreeger 

Decl. (“Expert 

Report of Gregory 

Bell”)

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain confidential 

information relating to licensing rates and 

Kadcyla sales, the disclosure of which could 

harm Genentech’s competitiveness. See 

Wildman Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 386-2.

386-11 Exhibit 5 to Kreeger 

Decl. (“Excerpts of 

Dep. Tr. of Gregory 

Bell”)

GRANTED as 

to highlighted 

portions.

The highlighted portions contain confidential 

information relating to licensing terms and 

royalty rates between Genentech and third 

parties, the disclosure of which could harm 

Genentech’s competitiveness. See Wildman 

Decl. ¶ 4, ECF 386-2.

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 374, 377, 386 are GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2017

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01238-BLF Document 390 Filed 08/15/17 Page 4 of 4