Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:21-cv-04062
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Guardant Health v. Natera, Judge Chen granted some sealing requests, denied others, and ordered public redacted filings.
Guardant Health, Inc., Natera, Inc., and the public, because the order determines which portions of specified filings will be publicly available or redacted.
What happened
In Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., the parties asked to keep portions of several filings secret. The court required narrower requests under the court’s sealing rules, and the parties withdrew requests concerning Docket Nos. 369, 441, 451, 454, and 463.
The court granted the sealing request for part of Docket No. 463 and part of Docket No. 506. It denied the request for part of Docket No. 466 and denied some portions of Docket No. 517 while granting other portions. The parties must file publicly redacted versions within one week. The court said these rulings do not decide whether the documents may remain sealed at trial.
Judge Edward M. Chen issued the order on June 25, 2024. The order disposes of the listed sealing motions and related docket entries.
The detailed version
- Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-04062
- Edward Chen
- June 25, 2024
Background
Guardant Health, Inc. and Natera, Inc. requested permission to file portions of several documents under seal. The court had previously ordered them to narrow and clarify those requests under Local Rule 79-5 and the standards discussed in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu. The parties withdrew their requests for Docket Nos. 369, 441, 451, 454, and 463, according to the opinion.
Rulings
The court’s table rules as follows:
- Docket No. 463, Natera’s resolution of exhibit-list objections: Granted for the identified portions. - Docket No. 466, Guardant’s resolution of exhibit-list objections: Denied for the identified portions. - Docket No. 506, joint filing: Granted for the identified portion. - Docket No. 517, the joint motions-in-limine order: Denied for some identified portions and Granted for other identified portions.
The court ordered the parties to file publicly redacted versions of the documents consistent with these rulings within one week. It granted the requests without prejudice to how the documents may be handled if the case proceeds to trial and expressed skepticism that the documents could remain sealed at trial. The order states that it disposes of Docket Nos. 369, 441, 451, 454, 463, 464, 466, 506, 517, 542, and 543.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.