Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' motions to file documents under seal in support of a motion for attorney's fees. The court granted the motions to seal but ordered the parties to file publicly redacted versions of the exhibits within seven days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the parties' motions to file documents under seal“As such, the Court grants the parties’ 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 'compelling reasons' standard from Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, which is the correct standard for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit. The court found that the parties demonstrated compelling reasons based on confidential business information and third-party designations. The decision to grant the seal is consistent with the law and the record recited in the order. |
Ordering Plaintiffs and Defendant to file publicly redacted versions of certain exhibits“As such, the Court orders Shoreline to publicly file redacted versions of: Exhibits B, G, H, J, and K to the Declaration of Drew A. Hillier in support of Shoreline’s motion for attorney fees, and the Court orders Plaintiffs to publicly file redacted versions of: Exhibits 4-9, 13-20, 23-36, 38-40, and 44 to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Shoreline’s motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that sealing requests must be narrowly tailored. By requiring the filing of redacted versions, the court ensured that only the specific confidential portions were sealed, while the rest of the documents remained public. This is a standard and appropriate procedural requirement in this district. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (compelling reasons) and the procedural requirement (narrow tailoring). It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit and local district authorities. The reasoning directly addresses the motions and imposes a standard procedural remedy (redacted filings) to ensure compliance with the narrow tailoring requirement. There are no significant gaps or errors in the application of the law.
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 THE PARTIES’ 14 v. MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS 15 UNDER SEAL; SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC., 16 Defendant. [Doc. Nos. 394, 420, 421.] 17 (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 18 FILE THE PROPOSED 19 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND 20 [Doc. Nos. 395, 411, 412, 422.] 21 (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFFS TO 22 FILE PUBLICLY REDACTED 23 VERSION OF CERTAIN EXHIBITS 24 On September 14, 2023, Defendant Shoreline Biosciences, Inc. (“Shoreline”) filed 25 a motion for attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 396.) On October 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Fate 26 Therapeutics, Inc. (“Fate”) and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research 27 (“Whitehead”) filed a response in opposition to Shoreline’s motion. (Doc. No. 413.) On 28 1 October 6, 2023, Shoreline filed a reply. (Doc. No. 423.) Along with these filings, the 2 parties filed motions to file under seal certain documents filed in support of their briefing 3 on Shoreline’s motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79.2 and Patent Local Rule 2.2. (Doc. 4 Nos. 394, 420, 421.) 5 Specifically, Shoreline requests to file under seal: (1) Exhibits A, B, G, H, J, and K 6 to the Declaration of Drew A. Hillier in support of Shoreline’s motion for attorney fees; 7 (2) portions of Shoreline’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion 8 for attorney fees; and (3) portions of Shoreline’s reply in support of its motion for attorney 9 fees. (Doc. No. 394 at 1; Doc. No. 421 at 1.) Shoreline argues that the documents at issue 10 should be sealed because they contain information related to Shoreline’s confidential 11 business operations, third-party confidential business information, or information that has 12 been designated as confidential by Plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 394 at 3-7; Doc. No. 421 at 2.) 13 Specifically, Plaintiffs request to file under seal: (1) Exhibits 4-9, 13-20, 23-36, 38- 14 40, and 44; and (2) references to the contents of those Exhibits, including on pages viii, x, 15 3, 10, 22, 23, 24 of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Shoreline’s motion. (Doc. No. 420 at 1.) 16 Plaintiffs argue that the documents at issue should be sealed because they have been 17 designated as confidential by Plaintiffs, Shoreline, or third parties. (Id. at 1-2.) 18 After reviewing the documents at issue, the Court concludes that compelling reasons 19 exist to seal the documents. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 20 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-CV-2330-AJB-DHB, 2015 21 WL 12564223, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015); Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 22 14CV2129-MMA (AGS), 2017 WL 5029612, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). As such, 23 the Court grants the parties’ requests to file the documents under seal without prejudice to 24 the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order. 25 The Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed documents under seal. (Doc. Nos. 395, 26 411, 412, 422.) 27 Although the Court grants the parties’ motions to file the documents at issue under 28 seal, the Court notes that many of the parties’ sealing requests are not narrowly tailored to 1 seal the confidential information at issue. “Requests to seal must be narrowly 2 || tailored.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., No. 317CV01118-BEN- 3 || BLM, 2018 WL 3055938, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2018); see Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & 4 ||Sims, No. 06-CV-00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 2662311, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2021) 5 || (‘[A]ny order sealing documents should be “narrowly tailored”’ to serve those compelling 6 || reasons.” (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016))). Unless 7 ||the moving party can demonstrate that the entire document at issue contains sealable 8 ||information, in order for a sealing request to be narrowly tailored, the moving party must 9 publicly file a redacted version of the document along with the sealed version of the 10 || document. 11 As such, the Court orders Shoreline to publicly file redacted versions of: Exhibits 12 B, G, H, J, and K to the Declaration of Drew A. Hillier in support of Shoreline’s motion 13 ||/for attorney fees, and the Court orders Plaintiffs to publicly file redacted versions of: 14 || Exhibits 4-9, 13-20, 23-36, 38-40, and 44 to Plaintiffs’ opposition to Shoreline’s motion. 15 ||To the extent necessary (i.e., where the opposing party is the one claiming that the 16 |/information is confidential), the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the 17 ||necessary redactions. The publicly filed redacted versions of the exhibits must be filed 18 || within seven (7) days from the date this order is issued. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || DATED: October 12, 2023 | | | ! l | | | : 7! MARILYN HUFF, Distri ge 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 23 24 25 26 27 28