Actian Corporation v. AB Sciex LLC

Background

Defendants AB Sciex LLC, AB Sciex LP, and AB Sciex PTE Ltd., collectively called “Sciex,” filed an administrative motion to seal parts of three filings: their answer, their motion for a temporary restraining order, and a supporting declaration by Mark Cafazzo. Actian Corporation did not oppose the motion.

Sciex argued that the highlighted portions contained confidential business information about its business strategy and outlook. The information concerned, among other things, how many of Sciex’s mass spectrometers run on Analyst software, the number of new mass spectrometers using that software, the expected effect of termination on customers, and the time and investment needed to use different software. Sciex argued that disclosure could disadvantage it in future licensing negotiations and against competitors in the mass spectrometry business.

Legal Standard

The court explained that judicial records are generally available to the public. Because Sciex sought to seal portions of an answer and a motion for a temporary restraining order—filings more than tangentially related to the case’s merits—the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, sealing requires a strong justification. The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires reasons for sealing, evidence supporting the request when necessary, an explanation of the harm from disclosure, consideration of less restrictive alternatives, and a narrowly tailored request.

Ruling

The court found that compelling reasons supported sealing confidential business information whose disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also found that Sciex’s redactions were narrowly tailored to cover only material that could properly be sealed.

The court granted the motion to seal the highlighted portions of Sciex’s answer, the highlighted portions of Sciex’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and the highlighted portions of Mark Cafazzo’s declaration. Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Sciex’s administrative motion to file those materials under seal was granted.