Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:17-cv-04405
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
Plexxikon v. Novartis: Judge Gilliam denied three sealing motions and granted in part and denied in part two others.
Plexxikon Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and third parties GlaxoSmithKline PLC and GlaxoSmithKline LLC; the order determines which portions of specified court filings will remain sealed or must be made public.
What happened
In Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Plexxikon asked to keep portions of documents filed in connection with expert-witness, evidence, and post-trial disputes from public view.
The court said that merely labeling information confidential was not enough, especially when the required supporting declaration was missing. It allowed sealing for previously protected material and for information involving proprietary pharmaceutical research, development, and licensing.
Judge Gilliam denied motions 499, 539, and 542, and granted in part and denied in part motions 583 and 596. He directed the parties to file public versions of documents whose proposed sealing was denied within seven days.
The detailed version
- Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation · No. 4:17-cv-04405
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
Plexxikon filed administrative motions asking to seal portions of documents connected to Novartis’s motion to exclude expert witnesses, disputes about the admissibility of evidence at trial, and the parties’ post-trial motions. The motions were docketed as Nos. 499, 539, 542, 583, and 596. GlaxoSmithKline PLC and GlaxoSmithKline LLC also sought to seal portions of documents referring to confidential and proprietary business information, pharmaceutical research and development, and licensing information.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally receive a strong presumption of public access. For records attached to dispositive motions, a party generally must show “compelling reasons” to seal them. Civil Local Rule 79-5 also requires a sealing request to show that the material is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protectable, and to seek sealing only for material that qualifies for protection. For records connected to nondispositive motions, the lower “good cause” standard applies, requiring a particularized showing of specific harm from disclosure.
Reasons for the rulings
The court found that a designation of information as “highly confidential” was not by itself enough to justify sealing. In many instances, the party that designated the material had not filed the required supporting declaration within seven days. The court therefore found sealing unwarranted for those documents. The court adopted its earlier reasoning for material it had previously found sealable. It also found compelling reasons to seal GlaxoSmithKline’s confidential business, pharmaceutical research and development, and licensing information because disclosure could give competitors an unfair advantage in developing, marketing, or licensing rival products.
Disposition
The court denied Dkt. Nos. 499, 539, and 542. It granted in part and denied in part Dkt. Nos. 583 and 596. The court stated that documents filed under seal for which the motions were granted would remain under seal. It directed the parties to file public versions of documents for which sealing was denied within seven days of the order.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order on March 31, 2022.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.