Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC

Opinion

1 2 6 7 TEVRA BRANDS LLC, Case No. 19-cv-04312-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS; TERMINATING ADMINISTRATIVE 10 BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, et al., MOTION 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF Nos. 361, 417, 418]

12 13 Before the court are three administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ 14 motions in limine: 15 1. Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be 16 Sealed. ECF No. 361. 17 2. Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Order Regarding Motions in Limine. 18 ECF No. 417. 19 3. Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Order Regarding Motions In Limine. 20 ECF No. 418. 21 For the reasons described below, the Court rules as follows: the administrative motions at 22 ECF Nos. 361, 418 are GRANTED; the administrative motion at ECF No. 417 is TERMINATED. 24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 27 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 1 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 2 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 3 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 4 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 5 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 6 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 7 of a case,” however, are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 8 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 9 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 10 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal 11 the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 12 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard 13 requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 14 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 15 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 16 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. 17 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 A. ECF No. 361 20 Tevra filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 21 Should Be Sealed on May 23, 2024. ECF No. 361. Bayer filed a declaration seeking to seal 22 selected portions of the Joint Pretrial Statement. ECF No. 367. Bayer writes that the information 23 should be sealed because “highlighted portions of the Order contain highly confidential, sensitive 24 business information relating to Bayer’s retailer and licensing agreements and customers. This 25 highly confidential information is not publicly known, and its confidentiality is strictly 26 maintained. If this information were made public, competitors and counterparts would have 27 insight into how Elanco, as successor to Bayer HealthCare LLC, structures its business 1 the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. ¶ 7. 2 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 3 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 5 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 6 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 7 business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 8 standard). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 9 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:

10 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 11 Exhibit No. ECF 361-3 Joint Pretrial Highlighted portions at Granted, as it contains 12 Statement p. 18, lines 4-5, 7- 10, 12-17, confidential information relating p. 19, lines 2-3, 16-19, 25-28, to internal financial and business 13 p. 20, lines 1-4, 7-13 strategies and pricing. See ECF No. 367 ¶¶ 5-6. 14 15 A. ECF No. 417 16 Bayer filed the Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Order Regarding Motions 17 in Limine at ECF No. 417 on July 11, 2024. Twenty minutes later, Bayer filed what appears to be 18 a corrected administrative motion intended to supersede ECF 417 at ECF No. 418. As such, the 19 Court TERMINATES ECF No. 417. 20 A. ECF No. 418 21 The parties filed the Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Order Regarding 22 Motions In Limine on July 11, 2024. ECF No. 418. Bayer seeks to seal selected portions of the 23 MIL Order. ECF No. 418-1. Bayer writes that the information should be sealed because 24 “highlighted portions of the Order contain competitively sensitive business information relating to 25 Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices, including Bayer’s analysis of the flea and tick 26 market and Bayer’s surveying practices and methodology. This highly confidential information is 27 not publicly known, and its confidentiality is strictly maintained. If this information were made 1 HealthCare LLC, structures its business arrangements, allowing them to modify their own 2 || business strategy.” Jd. 4] 4. Bayer argues that the portions are narrowly tailored. Id. | 6. 3 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 4 document. See Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2016 WL 7911651, at *1 5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding “technical operation of [defendant's] products” sealable under 6 “compelling reasons” standard); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 7 |} 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (noting that courts have found “confidential 8 || business information” in the form of “business strategies” sealable under the compelling reasons 9 standard). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored. 10 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling x 12 Exhibit No. Order Highlighted portions at | Granted, as it contains competitively 13 Regarding p. 9, lines 26, 27; sensitive information relating to Motions in p. 10, line 2. Bayer’s internal business strategy and 14 Limine practices. See ECF No. 418-1 □□ 4-5. 15 16 || I. ORDER

3 17 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. ECF No. 361 is GRANTED. 19 2. ECF No. 417 is TERMINATED. 20 3. ECF No. 418 is GRANTED. 21 The parties SHALL refile public versions of each filing where the redactions and sealing granted 22 || by the Court are narrower than what was redacted in the current public versions by July 24, 2024. 23 24 || Dated: July 17, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28