STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen

S.D. California

STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen

DecidedSeptember 19, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-02426

StatusUnknown

This text of STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen (STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || STA PHARMACEDTICALS US, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-2426-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff,| ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 5 || y. SEAL (ECF 17) AND DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED 6 || Phuong Hoai NGUYEN, DISCOVERY (ECF 19-1) 7 Defendants. 8 In connection with its preliminary-injunction motion, plaintiff STA Pharmaceuticals 9 ||US, LLC, moves to seal Exhibit A to Yu Lu’s declaration and portions of Britton Moore’s 10 declaration. The public has a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 11 documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “A party seeking 12 |/to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing 13 sufficiently compelling reasons that override the public policies favoring disclosure.” In re 14 || Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); 15 || see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016) 16 || (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a preliminary-injunction motion that was 17 || “more than tangentially related to the merits” of the case). STA’s sealing motion is tailored 18 |/to protect only information that is sufficiently identified as trade secrets or confidential 19 || third-party information. Thus, the motion is GRANTED. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 20 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The publication of materials that could result in 21 ||infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome 22 strong presumption in favor of access to documents.”). 23 The request for expedited discovery (see ECF 19-1, at 24) is DENIED without 24 || prejudice. STA may renew this request with the Magistrate Judge. 25 ||Dated: September 18, 2025 26 | □ 7 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || STA PHARMACEDTICALS US, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-2426-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff,| ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 5 || y. SEAL (ECF 17) AND DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED 6 || Phuong Hoai NGUYEN, DISCOVERY (ECF 19-1) 7 Defendants. 8 In connection with its preliminary-injunction motion, plaintiff STA Pharmaceuticals 9 ||US, LLC, moves to seal Exhibit A to Yu Lu’s declaration and portions of Britton Moore’s 10 declaration. The public has a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 11 documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “A party seeking 12 |/to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing 13 sufficiently compelling reasons that override the public policies favoring disclosure.” In re 14 || Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); 15 || see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016) 16 || (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a preliminary-injunction motion that was 17 || “more than tangentially related to the merits” of the case). STA’s sealing motion is tailored 18 |/to protect only information that is sufficiently identified as trade secrets or confidential 19 || third-party information. Thus, the motion is GRANTED. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 20 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The publication of materials that could result in 21 ||infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome 22 strong presumption in favor of access to documents.”). 23 The request for expedited discovery (see ECF 19-1, at 24) is DENIED without 24 || prejudice. STA may renew this request with the Magistrate Judge. 25 ||Dated: September 18, 2025 26 | □ 7 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sta-pharmaceuticals-us-llc-v-nguyen-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack