Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to seal specific portions of Defendant Kaufman's answer and counterclaims and their first amended complaint, asserting that the documents contained confidential business information and patent license details. The Court granted the motions, finding compelling reasons to seal the narrowly tailored portions, and directed the Clerk to file the documents under seal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal Portions of Defendant Kaufman's Answer and Counterclaims“As such, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to file the documents under seal without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order.” | agree with court The court applied the 'compelling reasons' standard from Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, which is the correct standard for sealing pleadings in the Ninth Circuit. The court found that the confidential information regarding negotiations and patent licenses constituted compelling reasons, and that the request was narrowly tailored. This follows the law and the record recited. |
Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to File First Amended Complaint Under Seal“As such, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to file the documents under seal without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order.” | agree with court The court applied the same 'compelling reasons' and 'narrowly tailored' standards. It accepted the assertion that the paragraphs contained 'Highly Confidential' commercial information designated under a protective order. This is a defensible application of the law to the facts presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (compelling reasons) from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana). It applies this standard to the specific facts (confidential business info, patent licenses) and ensures the remedy is narrowly tailored, which is a required component of the analysis. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FATE THERAPEUTICS, INC.; and Case No.: 22-cv-00676-H-MSB WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR 12 BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, ORDER: 13 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 14 v. MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS 15 UNDER SEAL; AND SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.; and 16 DAN S. KAUFMAN, [Doc. Nos. 75, 109.] 17 Defendants. (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 18 FILE THE PROPOSED 19 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 20 [Doc. Nos. 39, 110.] 21 On July 7, 2022, Defendant Dan S. Kaufman filed an answer and counterclaims. 22 (Doc. No. 39.) On October 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Fate Therapeutics, Inc. (“Fate”) and 23 Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research (“Whitehead”) filed a motion to seal portions 24 of Defendant Kaufman’s answer and counterclaims pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79.2 and 25 Patent Local Rule 2.2. (Doc. No. 75.) Defendant Kaufman does not oppose Plaintiffs’ 26 October 25, 2022 motion to seal. (See Doc. No. 75-1, Scaccia Decl. ¶ 6.) On November 27 15, 2022, Defendant Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. (“Shoreline”) filed a response in 28 1 opposition to Plaintiffs’ October 25, 2022 motion to seal. (Doc. No. 81.) On November 2 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their October 25, 2022 motion to seal. (Doc. 3 No. 87.) 4 In the October 25, 2022 motion to seal, Plaintiffs specifically request to seal 5 Paragraphs 15-17, 19-21, and 24-25 of Defendant Kaufman’s counterclaims. (Doc. No. 75 6 at 1.) Plaintiffs assert that these paragraphs contain confidential information concerning 7 negotiations between Plaintiffs and Defendant Kaufman and communications concerning 8 a patent license. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue, therefore, that compelling reasons exist to seal these 9 portions of the document at issue because the public disclosure of this confidential 10 information related to negotiations and a patent license could be used by Fate’s competitors 11 to their competitive advantage. (Id. at 2 (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 12 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 14CV2129-MMA 13 (AGS), 2017 WL 5029612, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017); Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. Specialized 14 Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 12-CV-03844-JST, 2015 WL 984121, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. 15 Mar. 4, 2015).) 16 On January 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. (Doc. No. 108.) On 17 January 3, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a motion to file under seal portions of their first 18 amended complaint pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79.2 and Patent Local Rule 2.2. (Doc. 19 No. 109.) Specifically, Plaintiffs request to file under seal paragraphs 95-108, 110-117, 20 143-150, and 154 of the first amended complaint. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs assert that these 21 paragraphs contain information regarding Shoreline’s commercial activities with its 22 suppliers that has been designated as “Highly Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” 23 pursuant to the parties’ protective order. (Id. at 1-2; see Doc. No.72.) 24 After reviewing the documents at issue, the Court concludes that compelling reasons 25 exist to seal the documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Baker, 2017 WL 5029612, 26 at *6. Further, for both of the documents at issue, Plaintiffs have filed redacted versions 27 of the documents ensuring that Plaintiffs’ requests to seal are narrowly tailored to only seal 28 the confidential information at issue. See Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 06-CV- 1 ||00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 2662311, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2021) (“‘[A]ny order sealing 2 ||documents should be “narrowly tailored’? to serve those compelling reasons.” (quoting 3 Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016))); Whitewater W. Indus.., 4 || Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 317CV01118BENBLM, 2018 WL 3055938, at *3 (S.D. 5 June 14, 2018) (“Requests to seal must be narrowly tailored.”). As such, the Court 6 || grants Plaintiffs’ request to file the documents under seal without prejudice to the Court 7 modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order. The Court 8 ||reserves the right to unseal all or some of the pleadings as appropriate under the law. The 9 || Court directs the Clerk: (1) to seal Defendant Kaufman’s answer and counterclaims (Doc. 10 || No. 39); and (2) to file Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint under seal (Doc. No. 110). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || DATED: January 4, 2023 lu 13 MAL HUFF, pe 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28