ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 IMPRIMISRX, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-01305-BAS-DDL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 13 UNDER SEAL (ECF No. 179)

14 OSRX, INC.; OCULAR SCIENCE, INC.,

15 Defendants. 16 17

18 Before the Court is a motion by Plaintiff to file documents under seal. (ECF Nos. 19 179.) Plaintiff ImprimisRx, LLC filed a motion to file under seal portions of its motion to 20 de-designate documents wrongfully designated as confidential. This motion to seal is 21 unopposed. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to file documents 22 under seal. 23 24 I. LEGAL STANDARD 25 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 26 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 27 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 28 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 1 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 2 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 3 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 4 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 5 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 6 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 7 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 8 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 9 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 10 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 11 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 12 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 13 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 14 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. Motions to de- 15 designate documents as confidential are not more than tangentially related to the merits of 16 the case. See ImprimisRx LLC v. OSRX, Inc., No. 21CV1305-BAS(BLM), 2022 WL 17 3371343, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022). Accordingly, the “good cause” standard applies. 18 “A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each document it seeks to 19 protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is 20 granted.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (citing Phillips v. Gen. Motors, 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 21 (9th Cir. 2002). “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 22 articulated reasoning, do not satisfy” this standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 23 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 24 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)). A blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show “good 25 cause,” let alone compelling reasons, for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d 26 at 1133; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 27 (9th Cir. 1999). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of 28 1 the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular 2 case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 3 In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures set 4 forth in this Court’s standing order for filing documents under seal. See Standing Order of 5 the Hon. Cynthia Bashant for Civil Cases ¶5. The rule permits sealing to “only those 6 documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information.” Id. Thus, 7 although sometimes it may be appropriate to seal a document in its entirety, whenever 8 possible a party must redact. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting a preference for 9 redactions so long as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear”); Murphy v. Kavo 10 Am. Corp., No. 11–cv–00410–YGR, 2012 WL 1497489, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2012) 11 (denying motion to seal exhibits but directing parties to redact confidential information). 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 Plaintiff moves to file under seal portions of its motion to de-designate documents 14 wrongfully designated as confidential. (ECF No. 179.) Plaintiff justifies its motion to seal 15 by noting the parties have designated certain documents as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ 16 Eyes Only” under the case’s protective order. (Id.) This reason alone is insufficient. See 17 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. Defendants, in support of the motion to seal, acknowledge that 18 the documents to be sealed in this motion are the same documents moved to be sealed in 19 Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 187.) Defendants, 20 accordingly, incorporate their briefing with respect to that motion to seal. (Id.) Defendants 21 also claim these documents contain confidential business information and that the 22 documents would become a vehicle for improper purposes such as spite or scandal. (Id.) 23 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s motion to file its motion for partial 24 summary judgment under seal. (ECF No. 236.) The portions of Plaintiff’s motion to be 25 sealed here are portions of that motion that were previously sealed. These documents 26 contain Defendants’ confidential business information including contract negotiations and 27 sales leads. These justifications meet the “good cause” standard. Accordingly, the Court 28 grants Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal. 1 CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to file documents 3 |}under seal (ECF No. 179). The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal Plaintiffs 4 || motion to de-designate documents designated as confidential (ECF No. 180). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 / DATED: October 30, 2023 Cypnllug (Lapha. Ee ae SN og 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Aa