ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IMPRIMISRX, LLC, Case No.: 21-cv-1305-BAS-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO DE-DESIGNATE DOCUMENTS WRONGFULLY 14 OSRX, INC.; OCULAR SCIENCE, INC., DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL 15 Defendants. [Dkt. No. 181] 16

17 18 On November 30, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to De- 19 Designate Documents (“Motion”) under the operative Protective Order. Dkt. No. 181. 20 Keith J. Wesley and George Laiolo appeared for Plaintiff. Allie M. Fellows and Thomas 21 J. Martin appeared for Defendants. 22 For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIES the Motion without 23 prejudice. Judge Major previously denied Plaintiff’s first motion to de-designate ten of the 24 documents at issue in the instant Motion, and no changed circumstances warrant 25 reconsideration of that decision. See Dkt. No. 54. Further, the parties agree that all of the 26 documents at issue in the instant Motion are exhibits to the parties’ motions for partial 27 summary judgment and oppositions thereto and were the subject of a separate motion to 28 seal decided by District Judge Bashant. See Dkt. No. 236. With respect to the documents 1 ||as to which Judge Bashant found “compelling reasons” to seal under Ctr. for Auto Safety 2 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), that determination supports a 3 || finding of good cause to maintain the designation of those documents under the Protective 4 Order. On the other hand, the denial of the motion to seal as to any of the documents means 5 ||the documents will be publicly available on the docket and renders the Motion to de- 6 || designate those documents under the Protective Order functionally moot. 7 At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed with the foregoing analysis but raised concerns 8 ||regarding its ability to utilize documents designated under the Protective Order in trial 9 || preparation and as trial exhibits. Those issues are not raised in the pending Motion, and 10 || the Court concludes that resolution of trial-related issues is premature at this time. As such, 11 |/this Order is entered without prejudice to any party seeking future relief under the 12 || Protective Order with respect to such trial-related concerns. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 30, 2023 ie 15 Tbe! hh a 16 Hon.DavidD.Leshner SS 17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28