Smarthealth Incorporated v. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Smarthealth Incorporated, No. CV-25-00115-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] At issue is the parties’ Joint Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 44). For the [15] reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion. [16] Defendant Chemotechnique requests—and Plaintiff does not oppose—sealing [17] Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Chemotechnique’s Motion to Dismiss, supporting [18] “Designated Jurisdictional Documents” produced during jurisdictional discovery, and a [19] transcript of a September 17, 2025 deposition of Defendant Chemotechnique’s corporate [20] representative that is currently marked as “Highly Confidential” (collectively, the [21] “Documents”). (Doc. 44 at 2–3.) Defendant Chemotechnique argues that the Documents [22] contain information that would harm its competitive standing if filed unsealed. Defendant [23] Chemotechnique includes a declaration of its business developer attesting to the harm. [24] (Doc. 44 at 4; see Doc. 44-1.) [25] In the Ninth Circuit, courts “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to [26] court records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. [27] 2016) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. [28] 2003)). “In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial 1 record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the historical right of access 2 and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 3 F.3d 1172 , 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a document is “more than tangentially related 4 to the merits” of a case, the party seeking to seal the document must demonstrate 5 “compelling reasons to keep the documents under seal.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 6 1103. The Ninth Circuit carves out an exception that requires parties to satisfy the less 7 exacting “good cause” standard for materials attached to document that is unrelated to the 8 merits of a case. Id. at 1097 . 9 Defendant Chemotechnique moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for lack of personal 10 jurisdiction (Doc. 12), to which Plaintiff presently responds and attaches the Documents as 11 support (Doc. 45). Because jurisdictional issues are distinct from the merits of a cause of 12 action, Defendant Chemotechnique need only demonstrate good cause to seal the 13 Documents. In the Motion, Defendant Chemotechnique sufficiently shows good cause 14 because the Documents contain nonpublic business information that could be used to harm 15 its competitive standing. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (sources of business 16 information that might harm a party’s competitive standing satisfy the “compelling 17 reasons” standard). Specifically, several Documents reveal Defendant Chemotechnique’s 18 sales data across different markets and production and advertising strategy. (Doc. 44-1 at 19 3–5.) A competitor may benefit from this information by replicating Defendant 20 Chemotechnique’s strategies or targeting underserved markets based on Defendant 21 Chemotechnique’s sale revenue, which in turn would harm Defendant Chemotechnique’s 22 competitive standing. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion. 23 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting the Joint Motion for Leave to File 24 Under Seal (Doc. 44). 25 . . . 26 . . . 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the || documents currently lodged under seal at Doc. 46. 3 Dated this Ist day of October, 2025. CN 4 “wok: Unie States#District Judge [28] -3-