Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC., Case No. 21-cv-02419-BLF (SVK)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL LUCAS-MCGREEVY DECLARATION 10 IMPOSSIBLE X LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 252 11 Defendants.

12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Impossible Foods Inc.’s (“Impossible Foods”) administrative 13 motion to seal the declaration of Judy Lucas-McGreevy, submitted in response to this Court’s 14 order at Dkt. 248. See Dkts. 251-52. Defendants Impossible X LLC and Joel Runyon oppose the 15 motion. Dkt. 255. Additionally, with Defendants’ consent, Plaintiff has sought leave to file a 16 reply, which the Court GRANTS. Dkt. 256; Dkt. 256-1 (“Reply”). Having considered the 17 Parties’ submissions, the relevant law and the record in this action the Court finds good cause to 18 GRANTS the motion to seal. 19 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 20 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 21 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 22 The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the 23 purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating 24 to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must 25 demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 26 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that are “not related, or only 27 tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” such as “a discovery motion unrelated to the merits 1 This motion relates to the declaration of Judy Lucas-McGreevy, submitted in response to this Court’s 2 order stemming from the Parties’ long-running discovery dispute. See Dkts. 188, 235, 248. It does 3 not concern the merits of the case and, accordingly, the “good cause” standard applies. 4 The Court agrees that the declaration at issue contains information concerning IF’s internal 5 IT systems, document retention policies, and depreciation processes, disclosure of which would 6 reveal confidential and sensitive information “that could harm Impossible Foods in future litigations 7 and may result in competitors and business partners alike altering their interactions with Impossible 8 Foods.” See Dkt. 252 at 3-4. Indeed, the Court previously permitted Impossible Foods to seal an 9 overlapping (if less detailed) declaration for similar reasons. Dkt. 249 (permitting sealing of the 10 declaration of William Van Curen). Accordingly, at least some parts of the Lucas-McGreevy 11 declaration should be sealed. 12 Defendants object to the sealing of ¶¶ 4-14 of the declaration as effectively sealing “the 13 entire substance of the declaration” without justification. Dkt. 255 at 1. Specifically, Defendants 14 argue that Impossible Foods has not justified the need to seal: “employee departure dates, document 15 retention practices from 2018 and 2019, [Impossible Foods’] document search and collection 16 processes here, and a high-level description of its transition to a new data storage system in 2019.” 17 Id. at 1-2. But the Ninth Circuit has recognized that, under the “good cause” standard, “discovery 18 is largely ‘conducted in private as a matter of modern practice,’ so the public is not presumed to 19 have a right of access to it.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Seattle Times 20 Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984)). “There is no tradition of public access to discovery, and 21 requiring a trial court to scrutinize carefully public claims of access would be incongruous with the 22 goals of the discovery process.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Impossible Foods does not seek 23 to seal a pleading, a brief or even a joint discovery statement. Rather, what Impossible Foods seeks 24 to seal is a discovery-related declaration which, in the ordinary course, might simply have been 25 served and never filed at all, but for the Court’s order. See Dkt. 248. In this context of discovery 26 on discovery, the Court finds good cause to grant the motion to seal in its entirety. 27 //// ] Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall maintain Dkt. 252-2 under seal. 2 3 SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: August 6, 2025 5 Suis verKt SUSAN VAN KEULEN 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 1] as 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28