In Re: Da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation

Background

The court considered the parties’ and third parties’ administrative motions to seal documents, motions concerning sealing third-party materials, supporting statements and declarations, and related exhibits. The requests involved materials connected with expert reports, summary-judgment briefing, deposition testimony, and other filings.

Legal standard

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a party seeking to seal court documents must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, explain the injury that would result from disclosure, and show why a less restrictive option would not be sufficient. Requests must be narrowly limited to sealable material.

For judicial records, the court applied the strong presumption favoring public access and required compelling reasons supported by specific facts showing that disclosure would cause particular harm. The court explained that compelling reasons may include the risk of releasing trade secrets or business information that could harm a party’s competitive position. For records attached to motions that do not resolve the case, the court noted that a lower “good cause” standard may apply.

Ruling

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered that the administrative motions were granted in part and denied in part. The court granted sealing for materials or portions containing proprietary business information, proprietary product-development information, non-public financial information, and cybersecurity development content. The chart also identifies some sealed material as settlement-related non-public financial information.

The court denied requests to seal portions describing surgical maneuvers because those descriptions were not proprietary. In one group of requested materials, the court granted sealing for some figures and portions while denying sealing for figures containing descriptions of surgical maneuvers. The court also denied sealing for documents or portions designated confidential under a protective order when no party or third party filed the required statement or declaration seeking continued sealing under the local rule.

The court stated that it appreciated counsel’s work preparing the chart and cautioned that, although it granted sealing for many materials at that stage, it would be disinclined to permit sealing of materials presented in a public trial.