Labarge v. Elutia, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 WILLIAM LABARGE, et al., Case No. 24-cv-1857-MMA-DEB

14 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 15 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

16 ELUTIA, INC., et al., [Doc. No. 57] 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs William and Carol Labarge (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 23 filed a motion, ex parte, to file under seal certain portions of their motion for leave to 24 amend the complaint, as well as exhibits to that motion. Doc. No. 57. Plaintiffs indicate 25 that Defendants Elutia, Inc. f/k/a Aziyo Biologics, Inc. (“Aziyo”) and DCI Donor 26 Services, Inc. d/b/a Tennessee Donor Services (“DCI”) (collectively “Defendants”) 27 requested the items be filed under seal in accordance with the operative protective order. 28 Id. at 3. 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiffs William and Carol Labarge (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their initial 3 complaint on October 15, 2024. Doc. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiffs assert claims for 4 negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, and breach of express warranty 5 against Aziyo, negligence against DCI, and loss of consortium against both Aziyo and 6 DCI. Compl. ¶¶ 56–97. These claims arise from allegations that Plaintiff William 7 LaBarge received a defective spinal implant, manufactured by Aziyo and DCI, that 8 exposed him to tuberculosis and leading to illness, injury, and continued pain.1 Compl. 9 ¶¶ 16–55. On November 20, 2024, DCI filed a crossclaim against Aziyo for breach of 10 contract, express indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. 11 See generally Doc. No. 10. Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, to 12 which they seek to attach exhibits they assert should be sealed. Doc. No. 56. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 15 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 16 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 17 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often 18 provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” 19 Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 20 Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of 21 access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield 22 Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 23 1178). For filings more than tangentially relevant to the case’s merits, that presumption 24 can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweigh[s] the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95; 26 27 1 Plaintiffs allege, specifically, that Aziyo manufactures the implant, and “retained DCI to, among other 28 1 Settrini v. City of San Diego, No. 320CV02273RBMBGS, 2022 WL 6785755 *1 (S.D. 2 Cal. Oct. 11, 2022). “When the underlying motion does not surpass . . . tangential 3 relevance . . . [a] ‘good cause’ standard applies.” Settrini, 2022 WL 6785755 at *1; 4 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiffs seek to file five exhibits to their motion for leave to amend the complaint 7 under seal: Exhibits D, E, I, J, and K. Doc. No. 57 at 3. Plaintiffs also seek to seal the 8 portions of their motion for leave to amend that discuss these documents. Id. Exhibit D 9 contains a donor’s medical records. Id.; Doc. No. 59. Exhibit E contains Defendants’ 10 “confidential and proprietary procedures.” Doc. No. 57 at 3; Doc. No. 60. Exhibits I and 11 J are FDA Form 483 documents detailing the FDA’s observations of Aziyo’s and DCIs’ 12 practices, respectively, after inspection. Doc. No. 57 at 3; Doc. Nos. 61–62. Exhibit K is 13 DCI’s response to the Form 483s. Doc. No. 57 at 3. 14 Plaintiffs do not address which standard governs the ex parte application, “good 15 cause” or “compelling reason.” See generally Doc. No. 57. The motion to amend the 16 pleadings, for which these exhibits are offered, is not dispositive nor seeks to alter how 17 the case is resolved (as would, for example, a motion to compel arbitration). See Doc. 18 No. 56. It seeks only to amend the pleadings. Id. Neither does Plaintiff seek to file any 19 portion of the proposed amended complaint under seal. See Doc. No. 57. Thus, the 20 Court determines that the “good cause” standard applies. See, e.g., Paradise Ent. Ltd. v. 21 Empire Tech. Grp. Ltd., No. 2:24-CV-00428-JCM-BNW, 2025 WL 755149 *2 (D. Nev. 22 Mar. 7, 2025); cf San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Prods., No. 14-CV-1865 23 AJB (JMA), 2017 WL 3269202 *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2017).2 24 The Court now turns to the exhibits. Exhibit D contains a non-party’s medical 25 records. Doc. No. 59. Though certain personally identifying information is redacted, it 26 still contains sensitive medical information throughout. Id. Such information is 27 2 A motion to seal the complaint or exhibits thereto, however, would invoke the “compelling reasons” 28 1 || generally subject to sealing even under the “compelling reasons” standard. See Salgado 2 || v. Igvia, Inc. No. 18-CV-2785-BAS-WVG, 2020 WL 1322949 *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 3 2020) (collecting cases). Next, Exhibit E contains Defendants’ proprietary and 4 || confidential business procedures. Doc. No. 60. This information is also subject to 5 || sealing even under the “compelling reasons” standard. See Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 6 ||21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024). Exhibits I, J, 7 K also contain material resulting from government inspection, both conclusions and 8 responses, and furnish sensitive information as to Aziyo’s and DCI’s business practices 9 procedures. Therefore, the exhibits should be sealed under the “good cause” 10 || standard applied here. 11 Finally, as to the portions of the motion for leave discussing the sealed exhibits, the 12 || Court determines that, despite Plaintiff's somewhat unorthodox manner of redaction, the 13 ||redacted portions are limited to substance that falls under the above categories: largely 14 || excerpts and block quotes from the exhibits containing Defendants’ business practices 15 procedures, and inspection results. Plaintiffs also lodge an unredacted version. Doc. 16 58. Thus, sealing is proper. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For those reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal is GRANTED. The Court 19 || DIRECTS the Clerk to file Doc. Nos. 58-63 under seal. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: May 5, 2025 Miku lM -£ hihlr 22 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 33 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28