Mission Wellness Pharmacy LLC v. Caremark LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 16, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00967
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Mission Wellness Pharmacy LLC, No. CV-22-00967-PHX-GMS

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Caremark LLC, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Mission Wellness Pharmacy, LLC’s (“Petitioner”) Motion to 17 File Application to Confirm Arbitration Award Under Seal (Doc. 1). Petitioner seeks to 18 confirm an arbitration award in its favor under 9 U.S.C. § 9. Citing confidentiality 19 provisions in the arbitration agreement and concerns that the arbitration award discusses 20 trade secrets, Petitioner requests that all proceedings to confirm the arbitration award be 21 carried out under seal. Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s request (Doc. 8). For the 22 following reasons, Petitioner’s request to conduct the proceeding under seal is denied. 23 A party seeking to seal an entire judicial record must make a strong showing of 24 “compelling reasons” that warrant overriding the “strong presumption in favor of [public] 25 access” to judicial records. Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) 26 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 27 Courts must (1) consider whether the moving party has articulated “compelling reasons 28 supported by specific factual findings” that support sealing the records in question, and 1 (2) balance these reasons against “the general history of access and the public policies 2 favoring disclosure, such as the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’” 3 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 4 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 5 Compelling reasons may exist when the relevant documents “‘might have become a vehicle 6 for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 7 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon 8 v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). But “[t]he mere fact that the 9 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 10 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 11 Petitioner has not shown that compelling reasons exist that warrant sealing the entire 12 judicial record. First, the parties’ agreement that their agreement and any arbitration would 13 be confidential does not establish compelling reasons exist. See Ovonic Battery Co. v. 14 Sanyo Elec. Co., No. 14-cv-01637-JD, 2014 WL 2758756, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2014) 15 (“The fact that parties agreed to the confidentiality of certain documents, however, does 16 not alone constitute a compelling reason to seal them.”); Marsteller v. MD Helicopter Inc., 17 No. CV-14-01788-PHX-DLR, 2017 WL 5479927, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 15, 2017) 18 (“Ordinarily, however, a party’s designation of a document as confidential is not per se 19 good cause.”). Second, while Petitioner may be right that the underlying arbitration award 20 contains references to Respondents’ trade secrets, Petitioner has not demonstrated that 21 these references are so pervasive that sealing the entire judicial record is the only way to 22 protect Respondents’ competitive standing in the “pharmaceutical benefit industry.” 23 (Doc. 2 at 5.) It is generally possible to file redacted versions of documents that reference 24 trade secrets on the public docket and successfully balance the competing interests in public 25 access and prevention of harm to competitive standing. See TriQuint Semiconductor, 26 Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 4947343, at *3 (D. Ariz. 27 Oct. 18, 2011) (noting that targeted redactions of information that may harm a party’s 28 competitive standing “only withholds a comparatively small amount of information from || the public, protects [the party’s] interest in its competitive standing, and does not affect the 2|| public’s interest in keeping a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies”). 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to File Application to Confirm Arbitration Award Under Seal (Doc. 1) is DENIED without prejudice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal this case. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to unseal and file the || corporate disclosure statements lodged at Docs. 4, 9, and 10. 8 Dated this 16th day of June, 2022. Wars ) 10 Hrsg Sod 11 Chief United states District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-