Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2024
• Docket: 5:19-cv-04312
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 TEVRA BRANDS LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04312-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., [Re: ECF No. 343] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the court is Bayer’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Order 14 Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 343. 15 For the reasons described below, the administrative motion is GRANTED. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 21 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 22 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 23 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 24 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 25 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 27 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 1 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 2 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 3 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 4 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 5 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 6 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 7 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 8 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 9 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 10 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 Bayer seeks to seal selected portions of the Court’s recent summary judgment order. ECF 13 No. 343; ECF No. 343-1. Bayer writes that the information should be sealed because “highlighted 14 portions of the Order contain highly confidential, sensitive business information relating to pricing 15 arrangements, sales and product strategy, retailer agreements, and customers. This highly 16 confidential information is not publicly known, and its confidentiality is strictly maintained. If this 17 information were made public, competitors and counterparts would have insight into how Elanco, 18 as successor to Bayer HealthCare LLC, structures its business arrangements, allowing them to 19 modify their own business strategy.” ECF No. 343-1 ¶ 4. Bayer argues that the portions are 20 narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 6. 21 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 22 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 23 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 24 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 25 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 26 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 27 standard). | ECF or Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 2 Exhibit No. ECF No. 322 | Highlighted portions at Granted, as it contains confidential 3 2:10; 3:6; 6:26; 8:9, 11, 25, |information relating to internal financial and 26; 12:10-11, 15-16, 26- 28; | business strategies and pricing. 4 13:1-8, 17-19, 22- 26; 14:4, 5 22. Furthermore, the highlighted portions at 2:10; 12:10- 11, 15-16, 26, 28; 13:2, 4, 23- 6 24, 26 contain competitively sensitive information details of Bayer’s retailer 7 agreements. 8 Furthermore, the highlighted portions at 3:6; 9 6:26; 8:9, 11, 25, 26; 14:4 contain competitively sensitive details regarding 10 Bayer’s pricing strategy. 11 Furthermore, the highlighted portions at 12:27; 13:1- 8, 17-19, 22, 25-26; 14:22 12 contain competitively sensitive information 5 43 regarding the identity of customers with = whom Bayer contracts.

Il. ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bayer’s administrative motion

|| is GRANTED.

Z 18 19 Dated: May 1, 2024 20 _feitnfaediian BETH LABSON FREEMAN 2] United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28