Case Name: Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Twist Bioscience Corp., et al.
Case No.: 16-CV-291137

This is an action for trade secret misappropriation and related claims. Plaintiff Agilent Technologies, Inc. alleges that its former employee, defendant Emily Leproust, stole its industry-leading genomics technologies to start her own competitive company, defendant Twist Bioscience Corporation. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ¶ 1.)

Currently at issue is plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of the Court’s Order After Hearing on June 16, 2017 and associated tentative ruling, which addressed defendants’ motion regarding the adequacy of Agilent’s trade secret designations.

I. Legal Standard

Generally, “[t]he court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(d).)

However, in actions for trade secret misappropriation, the court “shall preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include … sealing the records of the action ….” (Civ. Code, § 3426.5.) The usual sealing rules do not apply to records such as these, which “are required to be kept confidential by law.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.550(a)(2); see In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 298-299 [“a mandatory confidentiality requirement … is imposed … in actions initiated pursuant to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act for misappropriation of trade secrets”].) While the Court retains the authority to unseal claimed secrets that are not even arguably secret, it must generally preserve the confidentiality of claimed secrets until such time as that information is finally adjudged not to be a trade secret. (See Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 243, 255.)

II. Analysis

Agilent moves to seal section IV.B.1-3 of the Court’s Order After Hearing on June 16, 2017, along with the same section of the associated tentative ruling, which discuss the adequacy of its trade secret designation. It has submitted a redacted public version of the order and tentative. The Court finds that sealing these portions of the order and tentative is a “reasonable means” of preserving the secrecy of Agilent’s alleged secrets. (Civ. Code, § 3426.5.)

Agilent’s motion to seal is therefore GRANTED. The Court will prepare the order.