Labarge v. Elutia, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01857
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 WILLIAM LABARGE, et al., Case No. 24-cv-1857-MMA-DEB

13 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 14 v. FILE UNDER SEAL

15 ELUTIA, INC., et al., [Doc. No. 13] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 On December 11, 2024, Defendant Elutia, Inc., f/k/a Aziyo Biologics, Inc. 22 (“Aziyo”) filed a motion to file under seal Exhibit A in support of its motion to dismiss 23 Defendant DCI Donor Services, Inc.’s (“DCI”) crossclaims. Doc. No. 13.1 No party has 24 filed an opposition, and thus the Court determines that this matter is ripe for ruling.2 25

26 1 All citations to electronically filed documents refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system. 2 Aziyo obtained a hearing date from the Court prior to filing this motion, though Aziyo styles it as ex 27 parte. The hearing date in this matter is set for February 3, 2025. Doc No. 13. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules, the parties’ deadline to file an opposition was therefore January 17, 2025. CivLR 7.1.e.2. 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs William and Carol Labarge (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their initial 3 complaint on October 15, 2024. Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”). By way of the complaint, 4 Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and 5 breach of express warranty against Aziyo, negligence against DCI, and loss of 6 consortium against both Aziyo and DCI. Compl. ¶¶ 56–97. These claims arise from 7 allegations that Plaintiff William LaBarge received a defective spinal implant that 8 exposed him to tuberculosis, manufactured by Aziyo and DCI, which caused him illness, 9 injury, and continued pain.3 Compl. ¶¶ 16–55. On November 20, 2024, DCI filed a 10 crossclaim against Aziyo for breach of contract, express indemnity, equitable indemnity, 11 contribution, and declaratory relief. See generally Doc. No. 10. Aziyo moved to dismiss 12 DCI’s crossclaims, Doc. No. 12, for which Aziyo now seeks to file an exhibit under seal. 13 Doc. No. 13. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 16 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 17 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 18 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often 19 provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” 20 Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 21 Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of 22 access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield 23 Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 24 1178). For filings more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, including motions 25 to dismiss, that presumption can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling 26 reason,” that “outweigh[s] the general history of access and the public policies favoring 27 3 Plaintiffs allege, specifically, that Aziyo manufactures the implant, and “retained DCI to, among other 28 1 disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95; Settrini v. City of San Diego, No. 320CV02273RBMBGS, 2 2022 WL 6785755 *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022). 3 III. DISCUSSION 4 Aziyo requests that the Court seal Exhibit A to its motion to dismiss, the purported 5 Cadaveric Tissue Recovery and Services Agreement between Aziyo and DCI. Doc. 6 No. 13 at 3. It argues that the document is a “highly confidential, proprietary business 7 agreement between the Defendants” that contains “highly confidential and sensitive trade 8 secret and proprietary information of the utmost importance to Aziyo.” Id. Aziyo 9 likewise asserts that redacting the document to remove such information from public 10 viewing would “amount to a total seal of the document” and is thus not appropriate. Id. 11 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 12 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have 13 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 14 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” 15 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 16 598 (1978)). “Courts have held that ‘confidential business information’ in the form of 17 ‘license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and 18 business strategies’ also satisfies the compelling reasons standard.” Nia v. Bank of Am., 19 N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024). 20 Aziyo cites no law in support of its motion, nor does it address or identify the 21 applicable legal standard. See generally Doc. No. 13. However, upon reviewing the 22 proposed sealed document, Doc. No. 15, the Court determines that sealing it is 23 appropriate. The document contains substantial amounts of confidential business 24 information regarding Aziyo’s confidential business practices, polices, and processes, the 25 release of which would amount to a release of trade secrets or its equivalent. Doc. 26 No. 15. Considering the volume of such information compared to the document as a 27 whole, the Court also agrees that redaction would be inappropriate or futile. Further, no 28 party has filed an opposition to the motion to file under seal. Therefore, the Court 1 || determines that there are compelling reasons to seal Exhibit A. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Aziyo’s motion to file under seal. The 4 || Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Exhibit A, Doc. No. 15, under seal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 21, 2025 ~ Vote al Ju hilt 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28