Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-mc-80213/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-mc-80213-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

IN RE APPLICATION OF MEDICAL 

RESEARCH COUNCIL FOR ORDER

Case No. 15-mc-80213-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART APPLICANT’S 

MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 28

Pending before the Court is Applicant Medical Research Council’s administrative motion 

to file under seal exhibits 3 and 4 to the declaration of Shane Brun in support of its motion for 

relief from nondispositive pretrial order of magistrate judge (“Brun Declaration”). Dkt. No. 28. 

Genentech filed a memorandum in support of Applicant’s motion to seal on January 4, 2016. Dkt. 

No. 30.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This 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 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[A] ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 

1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial 

record must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh 

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest 

in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal 

Case 4:15-mc-80213-HSG Document 32 Filed 01/13/16 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

citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 

outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court 

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 

1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 

Ultimately, what constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of

the trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. The court must “balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these 

interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base it decision on a 

compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 

conjecture.” Id. at 1179. 

Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are 

not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., No. 15-

55084, slip. op. at 17 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 8-9. The “good cause” standard requires 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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).

Per Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal 

must also “narrowly tailor[]” its request “to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(b).

II. DISCUSSION

In this action, Applicant seeks an order authorizing a subpoena of Genentech to produce 

Case 4:15-mc-80213-HSG Document 32 Filed 01/13/16 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

documents for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In the present 

motion to seal, Applicant asks the Court to seal records attached to its motion to set aside a 

discovery order previously issued by the Magistrate Judge to whom the matter was assigned. Dkt. 

No. 27. The Court finds that the records sought to be sealed are attached to a motion that is only 

“tangentially related to the merits” of the underlying case (i.e., the foreign litigation), and therefore 

will apply the “good cause” standard to Applicant’s motion to seal. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at

1213-14 (applying “good cause” standard to sealing of motion for discovery sanctions).

Applicant moves to seal the entirety of exhibits 3 and 4 to the Brun Declaration. Dkt. No. 

28 at 1. Exhibit 3 is a license and collaboration agreement between Genentech and Novartis 

Ophthalmics AG. Id. Exhibit 4 is Genentech’s written response objecting to Applicant’s 

subpoena. Id. Applicant states that it does “not believe that either [exhibit] required filing under 

seal,” but “has no objections” to Genentech’s claim that the documents should be filed under seal. 

Id. at 2. 

In its memorandum in support, Genentech does not seek to seal exhibit 4. Dkt. No. 30 at 1. 

Rather, Genentech only seeks to seal exhibit 3 because that licensing agreement “contains 

information that is internal, confidential and sensitive to Genentech, and which is subject to 

contractual confidentiality restrictions.” Dkt. No. 30-1 ¶ 3. Furthermore, “[t]he unprotected 

distribution of [exhibit 3] to the public could cause harm to Genentech and its employees.” Id.

The Court finds that good cause exists to seal exhibit 3 to the declaration of Shane Brun. 

See Digital Reg of Tex., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 12-cv-01971-CW, 2014 WL 6986068, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014) (finding good cause to grant motion to seal “confidential business 

information about royalty rates, terms of licensing agreements and revenues”). Furthermore, the 

Court finds that Applicant’s request to seal exhibit 3 is “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable 

material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

Case 4:15-mc-80213-HSG Document 32 Filed 01/13/16 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

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Applicant’s motion to seal with respect to exhibit 3 to 

the Brun Declaration. The Court DENIES Applicant’s motion to seal with respect to exhibit 4. 

Applicant shall publicly file an unredacted version of exhibit 4 to the Brun Declaration within four 

days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 1/13/2016

Case 4:15-mc-80213-HSG Document 32 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 4