Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06582/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06582-0/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

---

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

GENENTECH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JHL BIOTECH, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 18-06582 WHA

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER

SEAL 

Both sides in this civil action have filed administrative motions to file under seal in

connection with plaintiff Genentech, Inc.’s motion for provisional relief (Dkt. Nos. 13, 75, 106,

108). This order resolves those administrative motions.

In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding

whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing 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 merits — as here, where Genentech seeks provisional relief based on defendants’

alleged misappropriation of its trade secrets — 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).

Furthermore, Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) requires administrative motions to file under seal to “be

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” 

Case 3:18-cv-06582-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 5
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

1. GENENTECH’S MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 13).

Genentech seeks to seal documents in connection with its motion for provisional relief

(Dkt. No. 13). The supporting declaration states that the documents or portions thereof listed in

Exhibit A (related to various declarations and exhibits) contain Genentech’s trade secrets (Dkt.

No. 13-1 ¶¶ 3–5). Compelling reasons having been shown, Genentech’s request to seal the

documents or portions thereof listed in Exhibit A is GRANTED. 

As to the documents or portions thereof listed in Exhibit B, three defendants have filed

supporting declarations as follows. 

First, defendant Racho Jordanov seeks to seal page 7, lines 21–22 (highlighted in blue)

of the Kirshman Declaration. This portion discusses the circumstances under which Jordanov

left his employment with Genentech (Dkt. No. 97 at 2–3). Because the circumstances

surrounding Jordanov’s departure from Genentech back in 2011 are irrelevant to the underlying

motion for provisional relief, Jordanov’s request is GRANTED.

Second, defendants Xanthe and Allen Lam seek to seal portions of the Kirshman

Declaration and Exhibits 9, 13, 17, and 19 to the Kirshman Declaration (Dkt. No. 87). They

declare that the portions of the exhibits highlighted in blue pertain to personal private

information concerning their phone number and phone numbers and/or personal private email

addresses of non-parties associated with the Lams (id. at 1–2). The request to seal private

information related to phone numbers and email addresses in the exhibits to the Kirshman

Declaration is GRANTED. 

The Lams also declare that the portions highlighted in blue in paragraphs 21–22 of the

Kirshman Declaration should be sealed because it pertains to “[p]ersonal private information

concerning Defendant Allen Lam’s employment at Genentech, Inc.” (id. at 1). The

circumstances under which Allen Lam left his employment at Genentech, however, are relevant

to the merits of the underlying motion for provisional relief. Allen Lam has not articulated a

compelling reason (other than a boilerplate claim of “personal private and/or confidential

information”) to overcome the strong presumption of disclosure. The request to seal paragraphs

21–22 of the Kirshman Declaration is therefore DENIED. Allen Lam will have TWO WEEKS

Case 3:18-cv-06582-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 5
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

3

from the date of this order to seek emergency relief from our court of appeals, failing which that

portion of the Kirshman Declaration shall be unsealed. 

Third, defendant JHL Biotech, Inc. seeks to seal only those portions highlighted in blue

in the versions of the nine documents accompanying the Eberhart Declaration (Dkt. No. 108-1). 

These documents include Exhibits 3, 5, and 6 to the Balogh Declaration; Exhibits 11–12 of the

Kirshman Declaration; Exhibits 6, 8, and 17 to the McCloskey Declaration; and the

Supplemental Balogh Declaration (id. at 1–2). The supporting declaration states that those

portions relate to (1) “confidential and sensitive business information regarding” JHL’s testing

data, methodologies, strategies for formulation development, process development of JHL’s

Pulmozyme biosimilar, JHL’s timeline for development of its Pulmozyme biosimilar, and

pricing information for JHL’s Pulmozyme biosimilar, and (2) various individuals’ personal

mobile phone numbers and/or email addresses (id. ¶ 4–7). Compelling reasons having been

shown, JHL’s request to seal the aforementioned portions is GRANTED.

Genentech’s motion to seal the other documents or portions thereof listed in Exhibit B,

except to the extent stated above, is otherwise DENIED. Genentech shall file a revised version

of the relevant documents, in comport with this order, on the public docket by MARCH 20 AT

NOON (unless Allen Lam seeks emergency relief from our court of appeals). 

2. JHL’S MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 75).

JHL seeks to seal documents in connection with its opposition to the motion for

provisional relief (Dkt. No. 75). The supporting declaration states that the documents or

portions thereof listed in Exhibit A (related to various declarations and exhibits) contain

information related to (1) “confidential JHL business operations,” (2) “confidential JHL

protocols and procedures related to quality systems and facility operations,” and (3)

“confidential JHL protocols, procedures, and reports related to stability, potency, purity,

identity, and quality evaluations of JHL biosimilar products in development” (Dkt. No. 75-1 at

1–12). JHL further declares that it understands that Genentech alleges that those documents or

portions thereof are based on Genentech’s trade secrets (ibid.). Compelling reasons having

Case 3:18-cv-06582-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/05/19 Page 3 of 5
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

4

been shown, JHL’s request to seal the documents or portions thereof as listed in Exhibit A is

GRANTED. 

As to the yellow-highlighted portions of documents listed in Exhibit B, Genentech filed

a supporting declaration stating that those portions contain Genentech’s trade secrets (Dkt. No.

89 ¶ 3). Genentech’s request to seal the portions of documents listed in Exhibit B of JHL’s

motion to seal is GRANTED. 

3. GENENTECH’S MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 106).

Genentech seeks to seal documents in connection with its reply to the motion for

provisional relief (Dkt. No. 106). Specifically, Genentech seeks to seal yellow-highlighted

portions of the Supplemental Balogh Declaration, Appendices A & B of the Supplemental

Balogh Declaration, and the Supplement Kirshman Declaration (Dkt. No. 106). As to the

information at issue in the Supplemental Balogh Declaration and its appendices, Genentech

declares that it contains Genentech’s trade secrets (Dkt. No. 106-1 ¶¶ 2–5). As to the

information at issue in the Supplemental Kirshman Declaration, Genentech declares that it

contains discussion of “certain confidential business information related to the procedures and

tools Genentech employs when conducting a sensitive internal investigation into suspected

employee misconduct” (id. ¶ 8). Genentech further explains that disclosure “would damage

Genentech’s ability to conduct investigations of this nature in the future if the specific steps

[Genentech’s Healthcare Compliance Office] takes were to be made public” (id. ¶ 9). 

Compelling reasons having been shown, Genentech’s request to seal the aforementioned

portions is GRANTED. 

JHL seeks to seal the blue-highlighted portions of page 24 of the Supplemental Balogh

Declaration, declaring that those portions “contain confidential and sensitive business

information regarding JHL’s testing data and methodologies” (Dkt. No. 108-1 at 2). These

portions also overlap with Genentech’s trade secrets. Accordingly, JHL’s request to seal the

aforementioned portions supported by JHL’s declaration is GRANTED. 

Case 3:18-cv-06582-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/05/19 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Except to the extent stated above, Genentech’s request to seal is otherwise DENIED. 

Genentech shall file a revised version of the relevant documents, in comport with this order, on

the public docket by MARCH 20 AT NOON. 

* * *

The above rulings are without prejudice, as this civil action will continue to produce an

evolving landscape of sealable material. For example, as this litigation progresses, it will

become clearer which of Genentech’s thirty-six asserted trade secrets — which, until now, have

all been kept under seal — actually qualify as such. Those that do not will ultimately be

unsealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-06582-WHA Document 130 Filed 03/05/19 Page 5 of 5