4WEB, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michelle M. Pettit (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs 4WEB, Inc. and 4WEB, LLC moved to file portions of their motion to compel discovery and associated exhibits under seal to protect the defendant's confidential business information. The Court granted the motion, finding that good cause existed to seal the documents because the underlying motion was not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to file certain documents under seal granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4WEB’s motion, ECF No. 158, and DIRECTS the Clerk to file under seal the proposed sealed documents lodged as ECF No. 159.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's framework for sealing judicial records. It identified the strong presumption of public access, determined that the underlying motion to compel discovery was not 'more than tangentially related to the merits,' and therefore applied the 'good cause' standard rather than the 'compelling reasons' standard. The court found that the need to protect highly confidential business information produced in discovery constituted good cause, which is consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Kamakana, Foltz). The reasoning is legally sound and supported by the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Center for Auto Safety, Foltz, Kamakana). It properly distinguishes between motions that are 'more than tangentially related to the merits' and those that are not, correctly applying the 'good cause' standard to a motion to compel discovery. The court explicitly finds that good cause exists based on the protection of confidential business information, which is a recognized basis for sealing under the cited authorities. The reasoning is complete and directly answers the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 4WEB, INC. and 4WEB, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-01021-JLS-MMP 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 14 v. MOTION TO FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 15 NUVASIVE, INC., 16 Defendant. [ECF No. 158] 17 18 19 4WEB moves to file three documents under seal in support of its pending motion to 20 compel discovery, ECF No. 160: (1) portions of its memorandum of points and authorities, 21 (2) Exhibit C, and (3) Exhibit E. ECF No. 158. In accordance with the Court’s ECF 22 Administrative Policies and Procedures, 4WEB has lodged the proposed sealed documents. 23 ECF No. 159. 4WEB asserts sealing is necessary to protect NuVasive’s highly confidential 24 and non-public business information produced in discovery as “Highly Confidential – 25 Attorney’s Eyes Only,” including information related to licensing transactions and internal 26 sales and marketing materials. ECF No. 150 at 2–3. 4WEB has concurrently filed a 27 redacted publicly available version of its pending motion to compel discovery. ECF No. 28 160. 1 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, courts begin with the 2 strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records and 3 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 4 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal 5 courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have 6 a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 7 justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) 8 (quoting U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 9 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 10 presumption of access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 11 Cir. 2003). The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents 12 to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 13 case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, 1102. Where the underlying motion is “more 14 than tangentially related to the merits,” there must be “compelling reasons” to overcome 15 the public’s right of access. Id. at 1096–99, 1102. Where the underlying motion does not 16 surpass the tangential relevance threshold, materials may be sealed only upon a showing 17 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097–99, 1101–02. For discovery documents attached to non- 18 dispositive motions (i.e., motions that are not more than tangentially related to the merits), 19 “the usual presumption of the public’s right of access [to court filings] is rebutted.” Phillips 20 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); see Ctr. 21 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. A particularized showing of “good cause” will suffice 22 to seal documents produced in discovery. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 23 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). 24 Because the underlying motion relates to discovery, the Court finds the motion does 25 not surpass the tangential relevance threshold and therefore applies the “good cause” 26 standard. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (“Applying the presumption of access in such a 27 circumstance would undermine a district court’s power to fashion effective protective 28 orders.”); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180) 1 || ‘Applying the good cause standard from Rule 26(c) as an exception for discovery-related 2 ||motions makes sense, as the private interests of litigants are ‘the only weights on the 3 ||scale.’”). The Court finds good cause exists to file under seal portions of 4WEB’s 4 ||memorandum of points and authorities and Exhibits C and E in support of its pending 5 || motion to compel. 6 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4WEB’s motion, ECF No. 158, and DIRECTS 7 || the Clerk to file under seal the proposed sealed documents lodged as ECF No. 159. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 20, 2025 Wybalt [y, shetet 10 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28