Hayden v. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:20-cv-00367
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Hayden v. Portola, Judge Chhabria granted some sealing requests, denied others, and ordered unredacted documents filed within seven days.
The parties seeking to seal documents, including Jackson Square, must comply with the court’s rulings, and the parties must file unredacted documents on the public docket within seven days.
What happened
In Hayden v. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the court resolved the parties’ remaining requests to keep documents or portions of documents from the public docket. The order concerned materials filed in connection with a motion for class certification and other filings.
The court granted some requests, including requests covering several documents and one footnote in defendants’ opposition memorandum. It denied many other requests, including requests involving an expert report, a class-certification reply brief, deposition excerpts, and several documents identified by Bates numbers. The court also said Jackson Square had not shown a sufficiently strong reason to keep its internal discussions about the stocks in this case sealed.
Judge Vince Chhabria ordered the parties to file unredacted documents on the docket within seven days. This order addressed document sealing and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hayden v. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-00367
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
The court addressed the outstanding motions to seal documents filed in the case. A party seeking to seal information in a motion that could resolve claims must show a “compelling reason” for sealing it. The order specifically stated that Jackson Square had failed to explain why there were compelling reasons to seal its internal discussions related to the stocks in the case.
Rulings
The court’s chart lists these rulings:
- The request to seal the expert report of Jack R. Wiener, Esq. was denied. - The request concerning defendants’ opposition memorandum to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was granted as to footnote 11 on page 19, as numbered by the electronic filing system; the remaining requests were denied. - The request concerning the lead plaintiff’s reply brief supporting class certification was denied. - The request concerning Thomas Lee Hazen’s expert report was denied. - The requests concerning the documents labeled GS_00017290–GS_00017293, GS_00016350–GS_00016353, and GS_00017461–GS_00017462 were granted. - Among the documents attached to the Hill declaration, the requests concerning Bates numbers JASQ-002460, JASQ-001563, JASQ-001646, JASQ-002195, and JASQ-002275 were granted. The requests concerning JASQ-000471, JASQ-000256, JASQ-000291, JASQ-000296, JASQ-000519, JASQ-000191, JASQ-000456, JASQ-000500, JASQ-001135, JASQ-001224, JASQ-001347, JASQ-003686, JASQ-001287, JASQ-000328, JASQ-000173, JASQ-001436, JASQ-000466, JASQ-000468, and JASQ-001372 were denied. - The requests concerning the excerpts from Lewis A. Slack’s April 1, 2022 deposition and documents labeled JASQ-001123, JASQ-002567–JASQ-002568, JASQ-002573–JASQ-002574, and JASQ-0023314 were denied.
Effect of the Order
The parties were ordered to file the unredacted documents on the docket within seven days. The order also noted that documents for which the designating parties had not objected to public filing should be filed unredacted if they had not already been filed. Judge Vince Chhabria’s order concerned sealing requests and did not resolve the merits of the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.