Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:18-cv-01662
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Illumina v. Natera, Judge Illston ordered full production of a deposition-preparation email and denied Illumina’s request to seal discovery letters.
Illumina, Inc. must produce the complete email reviewed by its deposition witness, and its request to seal portions of the discovery letter was denied; Natera, Inc. was the opposing party in these discovery disputes.
What happened
In Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., the court resolved two issues raised in the parties’ seventh and eighth discovery-dispute letters.
The court ordered Illumina to produce the entire email its organizational witness reviewed before testifying, rather than only an unredacted portion concerning patent invalidity. The court also denied Illumina’s request to seal parts of a discovery letter and related deposition testimony.
Judge Susan Illston ruled that the witness had reviewed the entire email while preparing for the deposition and that the quoted testimony did not discuss sensitive material.
The detailed version
- Illumina, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-01662
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
The court addressed the parties’ seventh and eighth discovery-dispute letters. One dispute concerned an email that Illumina’s organizational witness reviewed while preparing for a deposition. Illumina had produced a redacted version showing only portions related to patent invalidity. The other dispute concerned Illumina’s request to file portions of a discovery letter under seal because the letter quoted and discussed material designated “Outside Attorney’s Eyes Only Information.”
Production of the Document
The court ordered Illumina to produce the entire email without redactions. It reasoned that the witness reviewed the entire document before testifying and directly relied on it during the deposition. The court distinguished cases involving witnesses who read only particular portions of documents during their depositions. It also stated that the factors from Sporck supported disclosure of the entire document.
Sealing Request and Ruling
The court denied Illumina’s motion to seal. It explained that labeling material confidential, or referring to a protective order allowing such designations, was not enough to justify restricting public access. The portions of the deposition testimony quoted in the discovery letter generally discussed Illumina’s position that it did not infringe the “592 patent and did not discuss sensitive material. Judge Susan Illston ordered production of the complete email and denied the sealing motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.