Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Plexxikon v. Novartis, Judge Gilliam set procedures for future motions to seal in the case.
Plexxikon Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and any nonparties with potentially sealable information who participate in future sealing requests in the case.
What happened
In Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the court issued instructions because the parties were expected to file many motions to keep documents or information from public view. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The court required future sealing requests to identify the documents, the specific portions to be sealed, and specific reasons supported by declarations and legal authority. It also explained procedures for responses by parties or nonparties, revised redactions, and combined motions covering multiple requests.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the parties to follow these procedures and the court’s local rule. The order states that if no required response is filed, the party that requested sealing must notify the court and indicate that the motion should be denied.
The detailed version
- Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation · No. 4:17-cv-04405
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 16, 2020
Background
The court anticipated that the parties would continue filing numerous administrative motions to seal. It directed them to follow Civil Local Rule 79-5 and the additional procedures in this order.
Required information for sealing requests
Each proposed order supporting a motion to seal had to include, for every item:
- the docket numbers of the public and provisionally sealed versions; - the document’s name; - the specific portions requested to be sealed; and - specific reasons for sealing, supported by citations to declarations and legal authority.
The court stated that general references to privilege, without an explanation connecting the claimed protection to the documents, do not satisfy the required burden. The parties could use the four-column table in Docket No. 386 as a template.
Responses and nonparty information
A party responding to a sealing request had to provide reasons for sealing, with citations to supporting declarations and legal authority. If the response sought less sealing than the original motion, it also had to include revised redacted and unredacted versions of the documents, with the portions to be sealed clearly marked on the unredacted version.
If a sealing request relied on confidentiality obligations to a nonparty, the declaration had to be served on that nonparty. The nonparty had to be told to follow the procedures for a designating party, but it had four days from service of the declaration—not from filing of the motion—to respond. If no responsive declaration was filed, the party that submitted the sealing motion had to notify the court and indicate that the motion should be denied on that basis.
Combined motions and ruling
For later briefing involving multiple sealing requests, the parties and any nonparties with potentially sealable information had to jointly file one combined motion for all unopposed requests after briefing was complete. Opposed requests had to be covered in one combined motion filed by each party or nonparty making those requests. The later combined motion had to identify the docket numbers of earlier motions it superseded. The order also instructed the parties to email the proposed order to the court’s chambers when it was electronically filed and not to provide redacted chambers copies.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered that these procedures apply in the case. The order was entered on March 16, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.