Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GUARDANT HEALTH, INC., Case No. 21-cv-04062-EMC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON REVISING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 NATERA, INC., 11 Defendants. 12 13 The parties have filed several administrative motions to file under seal. See Docket Nos. 14 369, 441, 451, 454, 463, 464, 466, 506, 517. In general, the parties’ proposals are far too broad. 15 See L.R 79-5(f)(6) (“overly broad requests to seal may result in the denial of the motion”). 16 Motions for an order concerning administrative relief “must set forth specifically … the 17 reasons supporting the motion.” L.R. 7-11(a). Pursuant to the local rules, a motion to file under 18 seal must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping 19 a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests 20 that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less 21 restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” L.R. 79-5(c) (emphasis in original). For 22 dispositive motions and judicial records attached to a dispositive motion, a party seeking to seal a 23 document “must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” to warrant 24 redacting. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) 25 (emphasis added).1 Information may be sealed only if it represents confidential “business 26 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” or a “trade secret[].” In re 27 1 Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9™ Cir. 2008). However, “[s]imply mentioning a 2 || general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the 3 documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 4 Here, for example, Natera moved to seal eighteen entire exhibits to its motions in limine. 5 || See Docket No. 369; see also L.R. 79-5(a) (“A party must ... minimize the number of documents 6 || filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as opposed to merely 7 || redacting the truly sensitive information in a document)”). Natera provided no reason for sealing 8 these exhibits, some of which include key expert depositions and internal emails which on their 9 face do not appear to include confidential business information or trade secrets. As another 10 || example, in Natera’s opposition to the motion to strike the supplemental report of Dr. Howard S. 11 Hochster, Natera sought to redact: “Guardant manipulated the Parikh Study and misrepresented its 12 || results, including most notably in the surveillance setting...” Docket No. 451. The fact that a 13 || document puts Guardant in an unfavorable light does not satisfy the “compelling reasons” 14 standard. 15 Thus, for Docket Nos. 369, 441, 451, 454, 463, 464, 466, 506, and 517, the moving party a 16 || must re-submit their compliant administrative motions to file under seal by Wednesday, June 5, 17 2024. The parties must narrow their requests for redactions and provide declarations establishing 18 || why each redaction is within the meaning of the local rule. Failure to comply with this order may 19 || result in complete denial of the motion. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: May 29, 2024 25 26 EDWARD M. CHEN 27 United States District Judge 28