Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-02137
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIMERA LABS INC, Case No.: 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PARTIES’ 13 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL

14 EXOCEL BIO INC., RAJ [Dkt. Nos. 157, 164, 169, 172] JAYASHANKAR, ALEJANDRO 15 (ALEX) CONTRERAS, and DEB 16 HUBERS, 17 Defendants. 18

19 On January 19, 2024, the Court issued oral rulings denying Plaintiff’s motions to file 20 under seal in their entirety Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Exocel Bio Inc.’s Motion to 21 Quash [Dkt. No. 157] and Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel [Dkt. 22 No. 169]. The Court also issued an oral ruling denying Defendants’ motion to file under 23 seal in its entirety Defendants’ Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 164]. For the reasons stated 24 on the record, the parties have not shown good cause to seal these documents in their 25 entirety. 26 Plaintiff also filed a motion to seal concerning a re-filed exhibit to its Opposition to 27 Defendants’ Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 172. The Court’s ruling denying Plaintiff’s 28 motion to seal its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel also extends to all exhibits 1 || filed in support thereof. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal the re-filed exhibit is also 2 || DENIED. 3 By not later than January 26, 2024, the parties must re-file their respective 4 ||pleadings. The parties may move to seal specific portions of those pleadings consistent 5 || with the principles that a request to seal a record must be “narrowly tailored” and must be 6 ||supported by a showing of “good cause.” See In re Mahltig Mgmt. Und 7 || Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH, No. 18-mc-80037 NC, 2018 WL 11198061, at *6 (N.D. 8 ||Cal. Apr. 24, 2018). Courts apply the “compelling reasons” standard to motions to seal 9 || filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Jd., citing Ctr. For 10 || Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). But where, as 11 |/here, the filings are “only tangentially related to the merits” of the case, a court may seal 12 || the filings “upon a lesser showing of ‘good cause.’” I/d., citing Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 13 || F.3d at 1097. “The ‘good cause’ standard requires a “particularized showing’ that ‘specific 14 || prejudice or harm will result’ if the information is disclosed. .. . ‘Broad allegations of 15 ||harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning’ will not suffice.” 16 || Jd. at *6 (citations omitted). 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: January 23, 2024 pile

71 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28