Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02845-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLERA CORPORATION-APPLIED

BIOSYSTEMS GROUP, a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ILLUMINA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

SOLEA INC., a Delaware corporation, and

STEPHEN C. MACEVICZ, an individual

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02845 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff’s request to file documents under seal is DENIED. In Kamakana v. Honolulu,

447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed,

“compelling reasons” are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as

compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. 

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be unduly

compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed on summary judgment

motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a “compelling reason,” a

substantially higher standard than “good cause.” Only social security numbers, names of

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling nature

(like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom would not be closed

for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which are, in effect, a

substitute for trial. 

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 64 Filed 12/07/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Defendants have failed to meet their burden. It is of no matter who filed the documents

with the Court. No substantive basis has been given by defendants to show why the documents

should be sealed. In addition, a party may not meet their burden by simply designating the

documents as confidential. Such circumstances would confer upon the parties the power to

seal any document it so chooses. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. If

any party wishes to file certain documents under seal, they must file a motion with a sworn

record demonstrating “compelling reasons” for sealing the documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02845-WHA Document 64 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 2