4WEB, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01021
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 4WEB, INC. and 4WEB, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-01021-JLS-MMP

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL

14 NUVASIVE, INC., [ECF No. 121] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Motion to File Under Seal: Joint 19 Motion for Determination of 4WEB’s Discovery Dispute Requesting NuVasive to Produce 20 Product Samples and Documents” (hereinafter, “Joint Motion to File Under Seal”). [ECF 21 No. 121.] The parties seek to seal portions of the Joint Motion for Determination of 22 4WEB’s Discovery Dispute (“Discovery Motion”) that NuVasive considers highly 23 confidential, non-public business information about its production and sales of the Accused 24 Products. [Id.] As part of the Joint Motion to File Under Seal, the parties included a 25 proposed Public Redacted Version of the Discovery Motion.1 [Id. at 6–28.] 26 27 1 The redacted version of a motion is generally filed separately on the public docket as a 28 1 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, courts begin with the 2 strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records and 3 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 4 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal 5 courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have 6 a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 7 justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) 8 (quoting U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 9 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 10 presumption of access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 11 Cir. 2003). The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents 12 to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 13 case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, 1102. Where the underlying motion is “more 14 than tangentially related to the merits,” there must be “compelling reasons” to overcome 15 the public’s right of access. Id. at 1096–99, 1102. Where the underlying motion does not 16 surpass the tangential relevance threshold, materials may be sealed only upon a showing 17 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097–99, 1101–02. For discovery documents attached to non- 18 dispositive motions (i.e., motions that are not more than tangentially related to the merits), 19 “the usual presumption of the public’s right of access [to court filings] is rebutted.” Phillips 20 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); see Ctr. 21 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. A particularized showing of “good cause” will suffice 22 23

24 25 versions, as applicable). The Declaration of Christopher A. Pinahs, ECF No. 122-1 (“Declaration”), and Exhibits A through D, ECF No. 122-2 (“Exhibits”), were lodged 26 under seal; however, the parties did not move to seal either document. [See ECF No. 121 27 at 1 (jointly moving to “to file under seal portions of the Joint Motion for Determination of 4WEB’s Discovery Dispute”).] The Court provides instructions on addressing these 28 1 ||to seal documents produced in discovery. Kamakana y. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 2 || F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). 3 Because the underlying motion relates to discovery, the Court finds the motion does 4 ||not surpass the tangential relevance threshold and therefore applies the “good cause” 5 standard. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (“Applying the presumption of access in such a 6 || circumstance would undermine a district court’s power to fashion effective protective 7 || orders.”); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180) 8 (“Applying the good cause standard from Rule 26(c) as an exception for discovery-related 9 ||motions makes sense, as the private interests of litigants are ‘the only weights on the 10 scale.’’). 11 The Court finds good cause exists to file portions of the parties’ Discovery Motion 12 || under seal. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 13 1. The Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 14 15 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file ECF No. 122 under seal. 16 3. To ensure accuracy of the docket, the Court ORDERS no later than February 17 2025, Plaintiffs shall file their Public Redacted Version of the Discovery Motion 18 accompanied by the supporting Declaration and Exhibits previously lodged under seal as 19 || ECF Nos. 122-1 and 122-2, as a separate, standalone motion on the public docket. In the 20 || event the parties intended to also move to seal either the Declaration or the Exhibits, they 21 file a renewed motion seeking such relief and file redacted versions of the documents 22 part of the standalone Public Redacted Version of the Discovery Motion. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: February 20, 2025 VA rf wl. My. x7 25 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28