STA Pharmaceuticals US, LLC v. Nguyen
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered STA Pharmaceuticals' motion to seal exhibits related to its preliminary-injunction motion and its request for expedited discovery. The court granted the motion to seal and denied the request for expedited discovery without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Seal (ECF 17) granted“Thus, the motion is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the correct Ninth Circuit standard for sealing judicial records, requiring 'compelling reasons' to overcome the presumption of access. The order recites that the sealing is tailored to protect trade secrets and confidential third-party information, which are recognized compelling reasons under Ninth Circuit precedent. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
Request for Expedited Discovery (ECF 19-1) denied without prejudice“The request for expedited discovery (see ECF 19-1, at 24) is DENIED without prejudice.” | unsure The order provides no reasoning for denying the expedited discovery request, other than directing the party to renew it with the Magistrate Judge. While the result is procedurally permissible, the lack of substantive analysis makes it impossible to verify if the legal standard for expedited discovery was correctly applied. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard for sealing judicial records, citing appropriate precedent (Nixon, Midland, Chrysler, Psystar). The reasoning for the sealing is sound and supported by the cited authorities. However, the order provides no reasoning for the denial of the expedited discovery request, which is a gap in the analysis, though the result is procedurally valid.
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