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

MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAPHENA MEDICAL, INC., and

ALBERT CHIN,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-07213 WHA

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER

SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

Both sides have filed administrative motions to file under seal certain documents and

portions thereof (Dkt. Nos. 84, 99, 105, 148) in connection with defendants’ motion for leave to

file an amended counterclaim after a prior order dismissed their initial counterclaim. Since the

underlying motion (Dkt. No. 86) functions in lieu of a new motion to dismiss the amended

counterclaim, it is “more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case.” “Compelling

reasons” are therefore required to rebut the “strong presumption” in favor of public access and

justify sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099–1101 (9th

Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006).

The following constitutes the Court’s rulings on these administrative motions:
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. DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (DKT. NO. 84).

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING

Exhibits 11–13 and 18 to proposed amended

answer and counterclaim

Maquet’s supporting declaration explains

that these internal documents reflect

Maquet’s detailed business information,

including its proprietary analysis of potential

competition (Dkt. No. 89 ¶¶ 3–6). Moreover,

the public can already understand the

relevance of these exhibits to the merits

based on the general descriptions and

summaries thereof in the parties’ unredacted

filings. GRANTED.

Exhibits 14–17 to proposed amended answer

and counterclaim

Maquet’s supporting declaration explains

that this internal spreadsheet contains

Maquet’s detailed sales information (Dkt.

No. 88 ¶ 3). Moreover, the public can

already understand the relevance of these

exhibits to the merits based on the general

descriptions and summaries thereof in the

parties’ unredacted filings. GRANTED.

Proposed amended answer and counterclaim,

and redlined version (highlighted portions)

For the reasons stated above, portions of

these documents are sealable only insofar as

they reproduce sealable information (see Dkt.

No. 91 ¶¶ 3–4). Defendants also seek to file

additional portions of these documents under

seal (see Dkt. No. 84 at 1–2), but their

supporting declaration (Dkt. No. 84-1) fails

to establish that said portions are sealable as

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

2. PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (DKT. NO. 99).

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING

Schulte Declaration (highlighted portions) These portions discuss the contents of

exhibits already deemed sealable as stated

above. GRANTED.

Exhibit A–C and F to Brandwajn Declaration

(highlighted portions)

Saphena’s supporting declaration explains

that these documents contain Saphena’s

detailed financial and sales information (Dkt.

No. 104). Moreover, this information would

not significantly improve the public’s

understanding of the merits. GRANTED.
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

Exhibit I to Brandwajn Declaration Maquet’s supporting declaration (Dkt. No.

99-1) fails to establish that this document is

sealable as required by Civil Local Rule 79-

5(d)(1)(A). This request is also not

“narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

sealable material” as required by Civil Local

Rule 79-5(b). DENIED.

Opposition brief (highlighted portions) For the reasons stated above, portions of this

document are sealable only insofar as they

reproduce sealable information (see Dkt. No.

103 ¶ 4). Sealing is otherwise not warranted. 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

3. DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (DKT. NO. 105).

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING

Reply brief (highlighted portions) These portions discuss the contents of

documents already deemed sealable as stated

above (see Dkt. No. 107 ¶ 3). GRANTED.

4. DEFENDANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (DKT. NO. 148).

DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING

Corrected filing of amended answer and

counterclaim (highlighted portions), and

Exhibits 11–18 thereto

These documents have already been deemed

sealable as stated above (see Dkt. No. 150 ¶¶

3–5). GRANTED.

The parties shall file public versions of the foregoing documents in full compliance with

this order by JANUARY 9, 2018, AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE