KIMERA LABS INC, Case No.: 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL
JAYASHANKAR, ALEJANDRO [Dkt. Nos. 342, 346] (ALEX) CONTRERAS, and DEB
Defendants. The parties move to file documents related to Defendants’ motion to compel (Dkt. No. 344) under seal. Dkt. Nos. 342, 346. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. I. The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This longstanding principle “is based on the need for federal courts, although independent – indeed, particularly because they are independent – to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, when evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts apply “a strong presumption in favor of access” to those records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).1 The party requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. The showing required depends upon whether the underlying motion is closely related to the merits of the case – in which case the party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal – or is only “tangentially related” to the merits, which requires a less demanding showing of “good cause.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. “Generally, the Court applies a good cause standard to motions to seal documents related to a discovery motion.” Dunsmore v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 20-CV- 406-AJB-DDL, 2024 WL 628021, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024). Although less demanding than the “compelling reasons” standard, “good cause” nevertheless requires a “particularized showing that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning,” do not satisfy the good cause standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). II. A. Defendants’ Motion to Seal – Dkt. No. 342 Defendants move unopposed to seal portions of their motion to compel additional documents allegedly responsive to a previous set of requests for production. See Dkt. No. 344. Defendants contend good cause exists to redact portions of their motion and 1 All citations and internal quotation marks are omitted, and emphasis and alterations 11 exhibits in their entirety so that Kimera may protect its trade secret and confidential information contained within the filings and attached exhibits. Dkt. No. 342; see also Dkt. No. 346 at 2 (citing In re Mahltig Mgmt. Und Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH, No. 18- MC-80037 NC, 2018 WL 11198061, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2018) (finding good cause to seal documents where their disclosure would “reveal how certain . . . technology works, and disclosure would enable . . . competitors to exploit . . . sunk research and development costs”). The Court has independently reviewed the proposed redactions and agrees that many of them, if filed publicly, will cause specific prejudice or harm to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to seal as follows: Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description Dkt. No. 343 Defendants’ Motion Granted in part. The Court finds good to Compel cause exists for all of Defendants’ proposed redactions except those at 6:25-262 because, as discussed in the Court’s previous Order on Motions to Seal (Dkt. No. 311), disclosure of Maryel Gonzalez-Perez’s job title and general responsibilities will not cause any prejudice.
Dkt. No. 343-4 Quality Manual Granted. The manual contains specific information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. 343-5 Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to Transcript Excerpts redact the following pages and lines: 4:1-25; (Maryel Gonzalez- 5:1-25; 6:18-25; 7:1-25; 8:1-25; 9:12-25; Perez) 10:8-25; 11:1-25; 12:1-25; 13:1-25; 14:1-25; 15:1-25; 16:1-25; 17:1-12; 18:9. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those 2 The Court uses the CM/ECF pagination and line numbers. For example, 6:25-26 Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 343-6 Inspection Report Granted. The report and attachments contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343-7 Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to Transcript Excerpts redact the following pages and lines: 5:6-25 (Dr. Duncan Ross) and 6:1-25. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 343-8 Inspection Granted. The observations contain specific Observations information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343-9 Response Letter Granted. The letter contains specific information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343- Letter Granted. The letter contains specific 10 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue.
Dkt. No. 343- Response Letter Granted. The letter contains specific 11 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343- Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to 12 Transcript Excerpts redact the following pages and lines: 7:2-19; (Maryel Gonzalez- 8:24-25; 9:1-25; 10:1-25; 12:7-25; 13:1-25; Perez) 14:22-25; 15:1-25; 16:1-21; 17:1-15; 18:1- 25; and 19:1-25. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 343- Quality Analysis Granted. The analysis contains specific 16 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343- Batch Record Form Granted. The form contains specific 17 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal – Dkt. No. 346 Plaintiff moves unopposed to seal its entire opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel and all attached exhibits in their entirety. Dkt. No. 346. Plaintiff contends there is good cause to do so for the same reasons as discussed above. The Court disagrees that the entire motion and all attached exhibits need to be sealed to prevent the specific prejudice or harm to which Plaintiff refers. The Court rules on the motion as follows: Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description Dkt. No. 347 Plaintiff’s Granted in part. Good cause exists to Opposition to redact the following pages and lines: 2:5-28; Defendants’ Motion 3:1-8, 12-13, 17-28; 4:1-24; 5:3-28; 6:1-5, to Compel 11-21; 7:13-14, 21-22; 8:3-4, 19-28; 9:1-28; 10:1-21; and 11:6-19. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KIMERA LABS INC, Case No.: 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL
JAYASHANKAR, ALEJANDRO [Dkt. Nos. 342, 346] (ALEX) CONTRERAS, and DEB
Defendants. The parties move to file documents related to Defendants’ motion to compel (Dkt. No. 344) under seal. Dkt. Nos. 342, 346. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. I. The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This longstanding principle “is based on the need for federal courts, although independent – indeed, particularly because they are independent – to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, when evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts apply “a strong presumption in favor of access” to those records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).1 The party requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Id. The showing required depends upon whether the underlying motion is closely related to the merits of the case – in which case the party must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal – or is only “tangentially related” to the merits, which requires a less demanding showing of “good cause.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. “Generally, the Court applies a good cause standard to motions to seal documents related to a discovery motion.” Dunsmore v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 20-CV- 406-AJB-DDL, 2024 WL 628021, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024). Although less demanding than the “compelling reasons” standard, “good cause” nevertheless requires a “particularized showing that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning,” do not satisfy the good cause standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). II. A. Defendants’ Motion to Seal – Dkt. No. 342 Defendants move unopposed to seal portions of their motion to compel additional documents allegedly responsive to a previous set of requests for production. See Dkt. No. 344. Defendants contend good cause exists to redact portions of their motion and 1 All citations and internal quotation marks are omitted, and emphasis and alterations 11 exhibits in their entirety so that Kimera may protect its trade secret and confidential information contained within the filings and attached exhibits. Dkt. No. 342; see also Dkt. No. 346 at 2 (citing In re Mahltig Mgmt. Und Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH, No. 18- MC-80037 NC, 2018 WL 11198061, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2018) (finding good cause to seal documents where their disclosure would “reveal how certain . . . technology works, and disclosure would enable . . . competitors to exploit . . . sunk research and development costs”). The Court has independently reviewed the proposed redactions and agrees that many of them, if filed publicly, will cause specific prejudice or harm to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court rules on Defendants’ motion to seal as follows: Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description Dkt. No. 343 Defendants’ Motion Granted in part. The Court finds good to Compel cause exists for all of Defendants’ proposed redactions except those at 6:25-262 because, as discussed in the Court’s previous Order on Motions to Seal (Dkt. No. 311), disclosure of Maryel Gonzalez-Perez’s job title and general responsibilities will not cause any prejudice.
Dkt. No. 343-4 Quality Manual Granted. The manual contains specific information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. 343-5 Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to Transcript Excerpts redact the following pages and lines: 4:1-25; (Maryel Gonzalez- 5:1-25; 6:18-25; 7:1-25; 8:1-25; 9:12-25; Perez) 10:8-25; 11:1-25; 12:1-25; 13:1-25; 14:1-25; 15:1-25; 16:1-25; 17:1-12; 18:9. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those 2 The Court uses the CM/ECF pagination and line numbers. For example, 6:25-26 Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 343-6 Inspection Report Granted. The report and attachments contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343-7 Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to Transcript Excerpts redact the following pages and lines: 5:6-25 (Dr. Duncan Ross) and 6:1-25. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 343-8 Inspection Granted. The observations contain specific Observations information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343-9 Response Letter Granted. The letter contains specific information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343- Letter Granted. The letter contains specific 10 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue.
Dkt. No. 343- Response Letter Granted. The letter contains specific 11 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343- Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to 12 Transcript Excerpts redact the following pages and lines: 7:2-19; (Maryel Gonzalez- 8:24-25; 9:1-25; 10:1-25; 12:7-25; 13:1-25; Perez) 14:22-25; 15:1-25; 16:1-21; 17:1-15; 18:1- 25; and 19:1-25. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 343- Quality Analysis Granted. The analysis contains specific 16 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 343- Batch Record Form Granted. The form contains specific 17 information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue.
B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal – Dkt. No. 346 Plaintiff moves unopposed to seal its entire opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel and all attached exhibits in their entirety. Dkt. No. 346. Plaintiff contends there is good cause to do so for the same reasons as discussed above. The Court disagrees that the entire motion and all attached exhibits need to be sealed to prevent the specific prejudice or harm to which Plaintiff refers. The Court rules on the motion as follows: Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description Dkt. No. 347 Plaintiff’s Granted in part. Good cause exists to Opposition to redact the following pages and lines: 2:5-28; Defendants’ Motion 3:1-8, 12-13, 17-28; 4:1-24; 5:3-28; 6:1-5, to Compel 11-21; 7:13-14, 21-22; 8:3-4, 19-28; 9:1-28; 10:1-21; and 11:6-19. The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 347-1 Declaration of Jan Granted. The declaration contains specific Torres information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Judicial Document Court’s Ruling Record Description Dkt. No. 347-2 Chart of Bates Denied. The chart does not contain specific Numbers information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. Dkt. No. 347-3 Deposition Granted in part. Good cause exists to Transcript Excerpts redact the following page and lines: 3:9-23. (Dr. Duncan Ross) The Court denies the motion to redact any portion of the transcript not listed above because those portions do not contain specific information regarding the alleged trade secrets at issue.
Dkt. No. 347-4 Deposition Granted. The excerpts contain specific Transcript Excerpts information regarding the alleged trade (Dr. Duncan Ross) secret at issue. Dkt. No. 347-5 Batch Comparison Granted. The report contains specific Report information regarding the alleged trade secret at issue. There is a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial records, overcome only by particularized showings of specific prejudice. The Court advises the parties that, in the future, it favors motions to seal specific documents with proposed redactions over motions to seal entire briefs and all supporting documents. See Sundby v. Marquee Funding Grp., Inc., No. 19-CV-00390-GPC-AHG, 2020 WL 4015694, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2020) (denying motion to seal because “redactions will eliminate the need for sealing”). / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / I Il. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 342]. Defendants must refile Dkt. No. 344 and all attached exhibits with redactions consistent with the table in section A above by not later than November 29, 2024. 2. The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 346]. Plaintiff must refile Dkt. No. 348 and all attached exhibits with redactions consistent with the table in section B above by not later than November 29, 2024. Dated: November 20, 2024 ae TC lho a
United States Magistrate Judge