Quintara Biosciences, Inc. v. Ruifeng Biztech Inc.

Background

This order addressed motions to seal portions of filings and supporting documents. The court stated that the public is generally entitled to access court records. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” The court also required sealing requests to be narrowly tailored and supported by specific explanations of why the material should remain sealed.

The court emphasized that referring to a confidentiality agreement or protective order is not enough by itself. It noted that information asserted to be trade secrets, and business information whose disclosure could harm a party’s competitive position, may support sealing when the required showing is made.

Rulings

The court ruled as follows:

- Dkt. 44-1: Granted sealing of Quintara’s amended trade secret disclosure. The court confirmed that the document contained material asserted to constitute trade secrets; a previous order had permitted filing it under seal. - Dkt. 51-4: Denied sealing of defendants’ motion for a protective order pending Quintara’s identification of trade secrets because Quintara did not seek to seal the material filed conditionally under seal. - Dkts. 51-6 and 51-8: Granted sealing of Quintara’s amended trade secret disclosures for the same reason given for Dkt. 44-1. - Dkts. 56-2 and 56-8: Granted sealing as to the requested material in the Wiseman declaration and related filing. The covered material included specified lines and contained material asserted to constitute trade secrets. - Dkt. 56-6: Denied sealing of defendants’ motion to strike because Quintara did not seek to seal the material filed conditionally under seal. - Dkts. 145-3 and 145-4: Granted sealing as to the requested material in defendants’ motion concerning terminating or issue sanctions and supporting declarations. The material allegedly included trade secrets and confidential customer and vendor information whose disclosure would cause Quintara competitive harm. - Dkt. 165-4: Denied sealing of Part 1 of the motion for partial summary judgment and its supporting documents because Quintara did not seek to seal the material filed conditionally under seal. - Dkts. 165-5, 165-6, 165-7, 165-10, and 165-11: Granted sealing as to the requested material in Parts 2 and 3 of the motion for partial summary judgment, the Novoa declaration, and the Wiseman declaration and exhibits. The material allegedly included trade secrets, confidential customer information, and sensitive financial information whose disclosure would cause Quintara competitive harm. - Dkt. 165-9: Denied sealing of the Wiseman declaration because Quintara did not seek to seal the material filed conditionally under seal. - Dkts. 168-2 and 168-8: Granted sealing as to the requested material in defendants’ motion to exclude and disqualify expert Tomo Kimura and related Wiseman declaration. The material allegedly included trade secrets, confidential customer and vendor information, and sensitive financial information whose disclosure would cause Quintara competitive harm. - Dkt. 168-6: Denied sealing of the motion to exclude and disqualify expert Tomo Kimura because Quintara did not seek to seal the material filed conditionally under seal. - Dkt. 170-4: Granted sealing as to the requested material in the Li declaration supporting Quintara’s opposition to defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The material allegedly included trade secrets and confidential financial information whose disclosure would cause competitive harm to Quintara and defendants. - Dkts. 177-4, 177-5, 177-7, and 177-9: Granted sealing as to the requested material in defendants’ replies and supporting declarations concerning summary adjudication. The material allegedly included trade secrets whose disclosure would cause Quintara competitive harm. - Dkts. 201-4 and 206-4: Granted sealing as to the requested material in the Li declaration supporting Quintara’s motion for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions and in defendants’ opposition and supporting documents. The material allegedly included trade secrets whose disclosure would cause Quintara competitive harm. - Dkts. 206-6, 206-8, 206-10, and 206-14: Denied sealing because Quintara did not seek to seal the material filed conditionally under seal. - Dkt. 206-12: Granted sealing as to the requested material in the Novoa declaration supporting defendants’ opposition to Quintara’s motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions. The material allegedly included trade secrets whose disclosure would cause Quintara competitive harm.

The court stated that its order did not decide whether the asserted trade secrets ultimately qualified as trade secrets. It found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored. The parties were ordered, within 28 days of the order’s date, to file documents in full compliance with the order to the extent needed.

Judge and disposition

Judge William Alsup issued the order on March 8, 2022. The order granted sealing for the specified requested material and denied sealing for the specified material that Quintara had not sought to seal.