Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KIMERA LABS INC, Case No. 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 14 v. SEAL REPLY BRIEFS 15 RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., [Doc. Nos. 457, 462] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”), ex parte, filed two 20 motions to seal portions of its replies in support of its Daubert motions concerning 21 Defendants Raj Jayashankar’s, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro (Alex) Contreras, and Deb 22 Hubers’ (collectively, “Defendants”) expert witnesses, Drs. Scott D. Olson and Aejaz 23 Sayeed. Doc. Nos. 457, 462. Each motion indicates that Defendants do not oppose it, 24 and a redacted version of each brief has been filed on the public docket. Doc. No. 457 at 25 2; Doc. No. 462 at 2; see Doc. Nos. 456, 460. As the Court has now ruled on several 26 such motions, by both parties, at this stage in proceedings, it will forgo a recitation of the 27 relevant background. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to 28 seal. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 4 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 5 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often 6 provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” 7 Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 8 Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of 9 access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield 10 Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 11 1178). For filings more than tangentially relevant to the case’s merits, that presumption 12 can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweigh[s] the 13 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95. 14 For filings that do not meet this “tangential relevance” threshold, the Court applies a 15 “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 16 1097–1102 (9th Cir. 2016). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 For the same reasons discussed in its prior orders sealing documents related to the 19 pending Daubert and summary judgment motions, the Court finds that the “compelling 20 reason” standard applies to the motions to seal. See Doc. No. 454 at 3; Doc. No. 422 at 3; 21 Doc. No. 397 at 4. Generally, “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 22 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might 23 have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 24 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 25 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “Courts have 26 held that ‘confidential business information’ in the form of ‘license agreements, financial 27 terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies’ also satisfies 28 the compelling reasons standard.” Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 1 2024 WL 171659 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024). This includes confidential information 2 about business profits, expenditures, and losses. See Pulse Elecs., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. 3 || Corp., 530 F. Supp. 3d 988, 1030-31 (S.D. Cal. 2021), aff'd, No. 2021-1856, 2022 WL 4 || 1436146 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022). 5 Upon review of the documents subject to the motion, the Court finds the portions 6 || that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal contain information concerning its purportedly 7 || confidential production processes—which it asserts are trade secrets—or information 8 || concerning profits and sales. Compare Doc. No. 459 at 4.4, 8 with Doc. No. 456 at 4 9 ||n.4, 8; Compare Doc. No. 460 at 4, 6 with Doc. No. 463 at 4, 6. This information, as 10 || discussed above, is of the type properly sealed. Plaintiff also filed publicly available 11 || versions of each document it seeks to seal, redacting in general only as much information 12 || as is relevant to protect the confidential information within. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For these reasons, the Court determines that sealing is appropriate and GRANTS 15 motions to file under seal. It further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. Nos. 16 and 463 under seal. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: June 25, 2025 Miku M- / hphlr 19 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28