Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to file portions of their infringement contentions and exhibits under seal pursuant to a protective order. The Court granted the motion but ordered the parties to file publicly redacted versions of the exhibits because the sealing requests were not narrowly tailored.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Motion to File Documents Under Seal is granted.“As such, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ requests 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 'good cause' standard for sealing documents in civil cases, which is the correct standard in the Ninth Circuit. The court found that the documents contained information designated as 'Highly Confidential' under a protective order, which constitutes good cause. The decision to grant the motion is consistent with the law and the record recited in the order. |
The parties are ordered to file publicly redacted versions of Exhibits A-G to the infringement contentions.“As such, the Court orders the parties to jointly file public redacted versions of Exhibits A-G to the infringement contentions.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the requirement that sealing requests must be 'narrowly tailored.' The court identified specific portions of the exhibits (claim charts, patent language, public citations) that did not contain confidential information and thus should not be sealed. Ordering redacted versions is the appropriate remedy to balance the right to access public court records with the need to protect confidential information. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate legal standards (good cause and narrow tailoring) for sealing documents. It cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Kamakana) and persuasive district court authority. The court identified specific deficiencies in the plaintiffs' request (lack of narrow tailoring) and ordered a specific remedy (redacted versions). The reasoning is sufficient to support the outcome.
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. MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 15 UNDER SEAL; SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.; and 16 DAN S. KAUFMAN, [Doc. No. 194.] 17 Defendants. (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 18 FILE THE PROPOSED 19 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND 20 [Doc. No. 195.] 21 (3) ORDERING THE PARTIES TO 22 FILE PUBLICLY REDACTED 23 VERSION OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS 24 On February 22, 2023, the parties filed a joint notice pursuant to the Court’s 25 February 17, 2023 order. (Doc. No. 193.) On February 22, 2023, Plaintiffs also filed a 26 motion to file under certain documents attached to that joint notice pursuant to Civil Local 27 Rule 79.2 and Patent Local Rule 2.2. (Doc. No. 194.) Specifically, Plaintiffs move to seal 28 1 portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Supplemental Disclosure of Asserted Claims, Infringement 2 Contentions and Document Disclosures and Exhibits A-G to those infringement 3 contentions. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs argue that there is good cause to file the documents under 4 seal because they contain information that has been designated as “Highly Confidential – 5 For Outside Counsel Only – Subject to Prosecution Bar” pursuant to the protective order 6 in this case. (Id. at 1-2; see also Doc. No. 56.) 7 After reviewing the documents at issue, the Court concludes that good cause exists 8 to seal the documents. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 9 (9th Cir. 2006); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-CV-2330-AJB-DHB, 2015 WL 10 12564223, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015); Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 11 14CV2129-MMA (AGS), 2017 WL 5029612, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). As such, 12 the Court grants Plaintiffs’ requests to file the documents under seal without prejudice to 13 the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order. 14 The Court reserves the right to unseal all or some of the pleadings as appropriate under the 15 law. The Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed documents under seal. (Doc. No. 16 195.) 17 Although the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion to file the documents at issue under 18 seal, Plaintiffs’ requests as to most of the documents are not narrowly tailored to only seal 19 the confidential information at issue. “Requests to seal must be narrowly tailored.” 20 Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 317CV01118BENBLM, 2018 21 WL 3055938, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2018); see Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 22 06-CV-00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 2662311, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2021) (“‘[A]ny order 23 sealing documents should be “narrowly tailored”’ to serve those compelling reasons.” 24 (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016))). For example, 25 Plaintiffs request to file under seal the entirety of a claim chart attached as Exhibit A to its 26 infringement contentions. A large amount of this claim chart does not contain confidential 27 information. As examples, the introductory section of the chart includes many 28 infringement allegations that mirror the allegations in the public version of Plaintiffs’ 1 ||supplemental first amended complaint; the chart includes claim language from the °369 2 || Patent — a publicly filed patent; and the chart also includes information from and citations 3 ||to public websites, scientific publications, and public court filings. As such, the Court 4 ||orders the parties to jointly file public redacted versions of Exhibits A-G to the 5 ||infringement contentions. To the extent necessary (1.e., where the opposing party is the 6 || one claiming that the information is confidential), the Court orders the parties to meet and 7 ||confer regarding the necessary redactions. The publicly filed redacted versions of the 8 exhibits must be filed within seven (7) days from the date this order is issued. Any future 9 || motions to seal filed the parties in this action must be narrowly tailored. See Whitewater 10 || W., 2018 WL 3055938, at *3. 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || DATED: February 22, 2023