Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Plexxikon v. Novartis, Judge Gilliam denied Novartis’s motions to seal, finding its explanations insufficient and ordering public filings.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s requests to seal were denied, and the parties were directed to file public versions of the affected documents within seven days.
What happened
Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation concerned two requests by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation to keep parts of court filings and exhibits from the public. The materials related to Novartis’s request to file a second motion for summary judgment and its objections to a Special Master’s recommendation concerning Plexxikon’s motion in limine.
The court ruled that simply labeling information “highly confidential” did not justify sealing it. Novartis also gave only general explanations about confidential deposition testimony or Novartis information and did not explain why the information required protection. In some instances, the parties also failed to file required supporting declarations.
The court denied both administrative motions to file under seal and directed the parties to file public versions of the affected documents within seven days. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation · No. 4:17-cv-04405
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation filed two administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of documents. One motion concerned materials connected to Novartis’s request to file a second motion for summary judgment. The other concerned materials connected to Novartis’s objections to the Special Master’s report and recommendation regarding Plexxikon Inc.’s motion in limine. The motions were docketed as Dkt. Nos. 344 and 390.
Legal standard
A motion to seal asks the court to keep judicial records from public access. The court explained that records connected to dispositive motions generally require “compelling reasons” for sealing, while records connected to nondispositive motions are subject to the lower “good cause” standard. The court applied the lower good-cause standard to the documents at issue. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must make a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific harm. A confidentiality designation or a general statement that information is confidential is not enough. Civil Local Rule 79-5 also requires sealing requests to be narrowly tailored and, in relevant circumstances, supported by a timely declaration.
Reasons for the ruling
The court found that many of the requested documents were supported only by a designation that the information was “highly confidential.” That designation was merely an initial designation under the parties’ protective order and did not establish that the documents were sealable. In addition, the designating party often failed to file a declaration within the time required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).
For the remaining documents, Novartis offered only conclusory explanations that they contained “highly confidential deposition testimony” or “highly confidential information of Novartis.” Novartis did not explain why the information was highly confidential. The court therefore found that Novartis had not established good cause for sealing.
Disposition
The court denied the administrative motion associated with Dkt. No. 344 and denied the administrative motion associated with Dkt. No. 390. The court directed the parties to file public versions of all documents for which sealing was denied, as identified in the order’s chart, within seven days from the date of the order.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.