Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:18-cv-00933
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc., Judge Chesney granted in part BD’s sealing motion, denied specified portions, and ordered public refiling.
BD, Cytek, and members of the public who access the court filings. Some information remained sealed, while specified portions and Exhibit 2 had to be filed publicly.
What happened
Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc. concerned BD’s unopposed request to keep parts of its opposition to Cytek’s motion to dismiss and related exhibits from public view.
The court found that some material contained nonpublic, highly sensitive information about draft technical documents Cytek created in its business. It allowed some portions to remain sealed, but denied the request for specified portions of BD’s opposition and for Exhibit 2 to a supporting declaration.
Judge Chesney ordered BD to file Exhibit 2 and a revised, redacted opposition in the public record within seven days. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
The detailed version
- Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Cytek Biosciences Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-00933
- Maxine Chesney
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) filed an unopposed administrative motion to seal, meaning a request to keep specified court filings or portions of them from public access. The request concerned portions of BD’s opposition to Cytek Biosciences Inc.’s motion to dismiss and exhibits supporting that opposition. The court considered the motion, the supporting materials, and a declaration from Cytek.
Court’s Analysis
The court found compelling reasons to seal limited material under Civil Local Rule 79-5. It determined that the material included nonpublic and highly sensitive information about draft technical documents that Cytek had created in the course of its business.
The supplied opinion text does not show the complete list of documents or portions identified in the order as remaining under seal. It does identify the exceptions to the sealing request and the required public filings.
Ruling
With respect to BD’s opposition, the administrative motion was granted, except for these portions, as to which it was denied: page 1, lines 16 through 17; page 1, line 23 beginning with “This is exactly” through line 25; and page 12, line 28.
With respect to Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of David S. Chun, the administrative motion was denied. BD was directed to file Exhibit 2 in the public record, along with a revised redacted version of its opposition consistent with the order, within seven days of February 4, 2020.
The order was signed by United States District Judge Maxine Chesney.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.