Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04405/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-04405-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

PLEXXIKON INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04405-HSG 

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

The Court anticipates that, given the nature of this case, the parties will continue to file 

voluminous or multiple administrative motions to seal. To streamline this process, the Court 

directs the parties to review and comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 as well as the Court’s 

additional procedures as detailed below.

Any proposed order under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B) must include in the table for 

each item sought to be sealed: (1) the docket numbers of the public and provisionally sealed 

versions of documents sought to be filed under seal; (2) the name of the document; (3) the specific 

portion(s) of the document sought to be filed under seal; and (4) the filer’s reasons for seeking 

sealing of the material, along with citations to the relevant declarations and any supporting legal 

authority. The reasons provided must be specific and tailored to the portion(s) of the document 

sought to be sealed; “[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further 

elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden.” See 

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir. 2006). The parties may 

use the four-column table in Dkt. No. 386 as a template.

Any responsive declaration by a Designating Party under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) must 

include a new proposed order in the tabular format described above, and must include the 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 387 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Designating Party’s reasons for sealing the material with citations to the relevant declarations and 

supporting legal authority. In addition, any declaration by a Designating Party under Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(e)(1) that seeks less extensive sealing than the underlying administrative motions to seal 

must be accompanied by revised redacted and unredacted versions of the documents sought to be 

sealed that comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C) and (D), including the 

requirement that the portions sought to be sealed must be clearly marked on the unredacted 

version.

Any declaration, whether under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) or (e)(1), that claims 

confidentiality obligations to a non-party as a basis for sealing a document or a portion of a 

document must be served on the non-party as set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). The non-party 

must also be notified that it must comply with the procedures set forth in that rule for Designating 

Parties, except that the non-party will have four days from service of the declaration—rather than 

from the filing of the administrative motion to seal—to file a declaration under Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e)(1).

If no responsive declaration is filed under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), the party that filed 

the administrative motion to seal must notify the Court and indicate that the motion should be 

denied on that basis.

For any further briefing in this case where the parties anticipate multiple administrative 

motions to seal, the parties—as well as any non-parties with potentially sealable information—

must, upon the completion of briefing, jointly file a new, combined administrative motion to seal 

for all requests where sealing is unopposed. The parties may indicate in the initial motion to file 

under seal that accompanies a brief or other document that a more fulsome and revised motion to 

seal will be forthcoming after the completion of briefing pursuant to this order. If any requests to 

seal are opposed, each party or non-party making an opposed request should file a single 

combined administrative motion to seal covering all of their opposed requests. The later 

combined motion to seal that is filed should clearly identify the docket numbers of the prior 

motions to seal that are superseded by the combined motion.

All proposed orders should be submitted in Word format by email to 

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 387 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 3
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

HSGpo@cand.uscourts.gov on the same day the proposed order is e-filed. The parties should not 

provide the Court with any redacted chambers copies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/16/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cv-04405-HSG Document 387 Filed 03/16/20 Page 3 of 3