Caris Life Sciences Inc v. Hauben

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: June 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01713
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CARIS LIFE SCIENCES, INC. § v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-1713-S ADAM HAUBEN : MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Adam Hauben’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the Appendix to His Motion to Stay Discovery (“Motion to Seal”) [ECF No. 38]. Having reviewed the Motion to Seal, Defendant’s Brief in Support of the Motion to Seal (““Defendant’s Brief”) [ECF No. 38-1], Plaintiff Caris Life Sciences, Inc.’s Response in Support of the Motion to Seal (“Response”) [ECF No. 45], Defendant's Reply to the Response [ECF No. 49], the Joint Statement Regarding the Motion to Seal (“Joint Statement”) [ECF No. 90], and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. I. BACKGROUND On September 13, 2024, Defendant filed his Motion to Stay Discovery (“Motion to Stay”) [ECF No. 37]. Defendant then requested leave to file Exhibit B-13 of the Appendix to the Motion to Stay (“Appendix”) [ECF No. 38-3] in redacted form. Def.’s Br. 1. According to Defendant, Plaintiff claimed the redacted portions of Exhibit B-13 “as its own confidential information.” Jd. Defendant disagrees that the redacted information is confidential. See, e.g., Joint Statement 2. Il. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79.3(b), “[i]f no statute or rule requires or permits a document to be filed under seal, a party may file a document under seal only on motion and by permission of the presiding judge.” No statute or rule requires or permits sealing here; therefore, the Court

must determine whether sealing is warranted. The Court “heavily disfavor[s] sealing information placed in the judicial record.” June Med. Servs., L.L.C. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519-20 (Sth Cir. 2022). In determining whether a document should be sealed, the Court undertakes a “document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 419 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This standard is “arduous,” and the balancing test is stricter than it is at the discovery stage. June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521 (citation omitted). “[T]he working presumption is that judicial records should not be sealed.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419 (citation omitted). Ill. ANALYSIS The Court concludes that filing Exhibit B-13 in redacted form is appropriate. According to Plaintiff, Exhibit B-13 contains confidential information and/or trade secrets. Joint Statement 2. Protecting trade secrets is a “good reason{] to file documents. . . under seal.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419. And redaction “is often practicable and appropriate as the least restrictive means of safeguarding sensitive information.” United States v. Ahsani, 76 F.4th 441, 453 (Sth Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). Further, because the redactions are narrowly tailored to protect only confidential and/or trade secret information, the Court finds that the interests in support of nondisclosure outweigh the public’s common law right of access to the redacted information contained in Exhibit B-13. See United States v. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., No, 2:21-CV-022-Z, 2023 WL 8116198, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2023) (“[A]ppropriate redaction rather than sealing is the preferred means of achieving privacy balanced with the public’s right of access.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)).

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Adam Hauben’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal the Appendix to His Motion to Stay Discovery [ECF No. 38]. The Court ORDERS that the version of the Appendix currently on file [ECF No. 38-3] shall remain under seal. The Court DIRECTS Defendant to file a public version of the Appendix with the redactions proposed in connection with the Motion to Seal. And the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to unseal ECF Nos. 38-1, 38-2, and 38-4. SO ORDERED. SIGNED June 6, 2025.

KAREN GREN SCHOLER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE