Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Judge Gilliam granted Plexxikon leave to reconsider sealing motions and authorized redactions protecting confidential licensing information.
Plexxikon, Novartis, the public’s access to the specified court filings, and non-party competitors who might otherwise obtain confidential licensing information.
What happened
Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation involved Plexxikon’s request to reconsider earlier decisions about sealing documents filed in connection with expert-evidence motions. Plexxikon said the documents contained its trade secrets and licensing information.
The court applied the lower “good cause” standard because the documents related to motions about expert testimony. It found that Plexxikon had narrowly limited its requested redactions and that public disclosure could give competitors an unfair advantage in future licensing negotiations. The court granted Plexxikon’s motion, removed one document from the public docket, and authorized or accepted redacted versions of the specified documents.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on March 31, 2021. Plexxikon was not required to file public versions of two documents for which redacted versions had already been filed, and it was directed to file redacted versions of two other documents within seven days.
The detailed version
- Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation · No. 4:17-cv-04405
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 31, 2021
Background
Plexxikon filed an administrative motion seeking permission to ask the court to reconsider its earlier rulings on motions to seal. The sealing requests arose from filings connected with the parties’ summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions.
Plexxikon identified four documents or sets of excerpts for reconsideration:
- Exhibit 2 to Tom Steindler’s declaration supporting Novartis’s motion to exclude Gregory K. Leonard’s expert testimony; - excerpts from Plexxikon’s opposition to that expert-testimony motion; - excerpts from Exhibit 1 to Laura E. Miller’s declaration supporting that opposition; and - Exhibit 1 to Miller’s declaration supporting Plexxikon’s motion to exclude James E. Malackowski’s opinions and testimony.
Plexxikon acknowledged that it had filed declarations late to establish that the documents contained information eligible for sealing, including trade secrets and licensing information.
Legal standard
The court explained that documents attached to dispositive motions generally may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while documents attached to nondispositive motions are subject to the lower “good cause” standard. Because the documents at issue related to motions about expert testimony, the court applied the good-cause standard. That standard requires a particularized showing that disclosure would cause specific harm. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, any requested sealing must also be narrowly tailored to material that is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protected.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that Plexxikon met the standard for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). It also found that Plexxikon had narrowly limited the proposed redactions to confidential and proprietary licensing information. The court concluded that public disclosure could give non-party competitors an unfair advantage in future licensing negotiations with Plexxikon and its business partners. It therefore found good cause to seal the identified material.
The court granted Plexxikon’s motion and ordered that:
- Plexxikon did not need to file public versions of the Leonard expert-testimony opposition and the related supporting exhibit because properly redacted versions had been filed at Docket Numbers 325 and 325-2;
- the clerk was directed to remove Docket Number 393-30 from the publicly available docket; and
- Plexxikon was authorized to file public, redacted versions of the Miller declaration exhibit supporting its motion concerning Malackowski’s testimony and the Steindler declaration exhibit supporting Novartis’s motion concerning Leonard’s testimony. Plexxikon was ordered to file those redacted documents within seven days of the order.
Disposition
The court granted Plexxikon’s administrative motion for leave to move for reconsideration and granted the requested sealing-related relief described in the order. This order addressed access to particular court filings; it did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute or the expert-testimony motions on their merits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.