Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Arcturus Therapeutics, Inc. and Capstan Therapeutics, Inc. occupy opposing positions in the main action and Capstan’s counterclaim, and both sides assert claims involving alleged trade secrets and other confidential biotechnology information. The order collectively calls AbbVie Inc., Capstan, Priya Karmali, Steven P. Tanis, and S.P. Tanis PharmaChem Consulting LLC the Capstan Parties. Their discovery dispute concerns whether each side has adequately identified the trade secrets it alleges are at issue. The sealing order describes that dispute but does not determine what information either side ultimately must disclose.
The parties jointly moved to seal materials connected to two competing motions to compel. Arcturus, Daiki Matsuda, and Rajesh Mukthavaram brought one motion against Capstan, while the Capstan Parties brought the other motion against Arcturus. The request covered limited portions of those motions and several declarations, specified exhibits, and documents containing the parties’ trade-secret identification statements. Among the listed materials were Exhibit C to Stephanie C. Cheng’s declaration, portions of the declarations of Dr. Glenn D. Prestwich and Daiki Matsuda, exhibits to Lisa B. Pensabene’s declaration, and portions of Dr. Jeffrey Winkler’s declaration and its Exhibit B. The motion did not ask the court to resolve the underlying misappropriation allegations.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard explained that judicial records ordinarily carry a strong presumption of public access, which a party seeking sealing must overcome with compelling reasons. A different rule applies to private discovery materials attached to nondispositive motions: the usual public-access presumption is rebutted, and a particularized showing of good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) can justify sealing. Rule 26(c)(1)(G) expressly permits protection of trade secrets and confidential research, development, or commercial information. The court applied that discovery-material framework to the documents associated with these competing motions to compel.
The supporting declarations identified confidential, nonpublic technical information belonging to each side. Capstan’s counsel described its fiercely competitive precision RNA delivery market and warned that disclosure could reveal the alleged trade secrets it says were misappropriated, giving competitors information otherwise unavailable to them. Exhibit C to the Cheng declaration was Capstan’s Amended Trade Secret Identification Statement. Arcturus’s counsel likewise identified confidential technical material in the Capstan Parties’ motion and supporting documents. Exhibit 1 to the Pensabene declaration was Arcturus’s Trade Secret Identification Statement, and portions of the Capstan Parties’ motion and Dr. Winkler’s declaration reproduced and analyzed the substance and asserted boundaries of Arcturus’s alleged trade secrets.
The court agreed that the materials contained confidential technical and alleged trade-secret information and found that the declarations established that public disclosure could cause competitive harm. It also found the request narrowly tailored because the parties sought to seal only passages containing or discussing confidential information, together with exhibits containing the underlying identification materials, rather than entire motions and declarations. Pensabene confirmed that Capstan sought sealing only for portions disclosing information about its alleged trade secrets. The court therefore found good cause, granted the joint motion, and directed the Clerk to file the documents lodged at ECF No. 55 under seal.
Key Takeaways
- Discovery materials attached to nondispositive motions may be sealed on a particularized showing of good cause rather than the compelling-reasons standard applicable to judicial records generally.
- The court relied on party-specific declarations describing confidential technical information and the possibility of competitive injury from public disclosure.
- The sealing request was narrowly tailored because it targeted limited passages and trade-secret identification exhibits instead of entire motions and declarations.
- The order resolves only the joint sealing request and does not decide the competing motions to compel or the merits of the trade-secret claims.
- The Clerk was directed to file the documents lodged at ECF No. 55 under seal.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Rule 26(c) protects confidential biotechnology and alleged trade-secret information while parties litigate the specificity of their discovery disclosures. It also shows the importance of supporting sealing requests with concrete declarations and limiting redactions to the information requiring protection. The court’s analysis distinguishes the good-cause showing for these discovery materials from the more demanding public-access standard governing judicial records generally.
By granting a joint, narrowly confined request, the court preserved confidentiality without sealing the entire discovery briefing. The public order nevertheless explains the categories of protected material and the reasoning behind the confidentiality determination. Its disposition leaves the adequacy of the trade-secret disclosures and the underlying claims for separate resolution.