Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 KIMERA LABS INC, Case No.: 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO SEAL UNREDACTED RESPONSE AND EXHIBIT 14 EXOCEL BIO INC., RAJ THERETO JAYASHANKAR, ALEJANDRO [15] (ALEX) CONTRERAS, and DEB [Dkt. No. 239] 16 HUBERS, 17 Defendants. [18] 19 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal a portion of their Response to 20 Kimera’s Motion for Leave to Take Additional Discovery Regarding Certain Non-Parties 21 Providing Relevant Services to Defendants and Motion to Compel Financial Documents 22 (“Response”). Dkt. No. 239. Specifically, Defendants move to redact portions of their 23 Response which reference Defendant Exocel Bio Inc.’s confidential business practices. 24 Defendants have demonstrated that good cause exists to redact this information in order to 25 prevent competitors from accessing the information and using it to their advantage. 26 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Seal. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 I. 2 LEGAL STANDARDS 3 The public enjoys a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 4 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 5 589, 597 (1978). When evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts in this Circuit 6 start with “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’” to those records. Kamakana v. City 7 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). The party 8 requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. The 9 showing required depends upon whether the underlying motion is closely related to the 10 merits of the case—in which case the party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to 11 seal—or is only “tangentially related” to them, which requires a less demanding showing 12 of good cause. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th 13 Cir. 2016). 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION 16 The “good cause” standard applies here because Kimera’s discovery motion is only 17 tangentially related to the merits of the case. See Labbe v. Dometic Corp., No. 2:20-cv18 01975-DAD-DMC, 2023 WL 6519306 , at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2023) (granting motion to 19 seal document attached to motion for reconsideration of discovery order—“This court 20 agrees with defendant that the good cause standard applies, consistent with the decisions 21 of the Ninth Circuit and numerous district courts in this Circuit which have concluded that 22 the good cause standard applies to discovery-related motions.”). “Good cause” requires a 23 particularized showing that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 24 disclosed. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 121025 11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of 26 articulated reasoning,” do not satisfy the good cause standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 27 Ins., 966 F.2d 470 , 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 28 / / / 1 “‘[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 2 standing’ often warrant protection under seal.” In re Mahltig Mgmt. Und 3 Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH, No. 18-MC-80037 NC, 2018 WL 11198061 , at *6 (N.D. 4 Cal. Apr. 24, 2018) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 ). Courts have granted motions to seal 5 parties’ “sensitive business information,” recognizing that disclosure “might allow 6 competitors to use that information to their advantage in their own contract negotiations,” 7 Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp., 530 F. Supp 3d 988, 1031 (S.D. Cal. 2021) 8 (citation omitted), so long as the material to be sealed is narrowly tailored to such 9 confidential business information. See, e.g., Monster Energy Co. v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. 10 EDCV-18-1882 JGB (SHKx), 2019 WL 3099711 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 17, 2019); see also 11 Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-cv-03003-JST, 2015 WL 13673842 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12 4, 2015). 13 Defendants assert that their “request to seal is narrowly tailored to include only 14 specific information about Defendants’ business practices necessary to include in 15 Defendants’ response.” Dkt. No. 239 at 3. In particular, Defendants request to redact “only 16 the specific, detailed information related to Exocel Bio’s business operations, namely, 17 information pertaining to its CMOs and the work its CMOs conduct on Exocel Bio’s 18 behalf.” Id. Such information “reveals the name of the specific CMO Exocel Bio used 19 exclusively to create its unique product.” Id. Defendants explain that “publicity of such 20 information may be useful to competitors who have not undertaken the time, expense, 21 effort, and research to identify CMOs capable of the specific work Exocel Bio has 22 employed them for.” Id. Moreover, Defendants note that “such business information is 23 not central to the merits of Kimera’s claims against Exocel Bio.” Id. Furthermore, 24 Defendants represent that Plaintiff does not object to the Motion to Seal. Id. 25 The Court concludes that good cause exists to redact portions of Defendants’ 26 Response. For the reasons discussed in Defendants’ Motion to Seal, disclosure of the 27 information Defendants seek to redact would afford competitors “an unfair advantage” by 28 revealing information Exocel Bio took great measures to obtain in securing its position 1 || among competitors. Additionally, the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to Exocel 2 ||Bio’s business information that, if publicized, “might harm a litigant’s competitive 3 || standing,” In re Mahltig Mgmt., 2018 WL 11198061 , at *6, and Plaintiff does not oppose 4 || Defendants’ Motion to Seal. 5 III. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 239] is GRANTED 8 || with respect to all redactions set forth in Defendants’ Response at Dkt. No. 241. No further 9 || action is necessary by the Clerk of Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: June 14, 2024 . 12 Tbe! hh a 13 Hon.DavidD.Leshner SS 14 United States Magistrate Judge