Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 4WEB, INC. AND 4WEB, LLC, Case No.: 24-CV-1021 JLS (MMP)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS 13 v. TO SEAL RELATED TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 14 NUVASIVE, INC., 15 Defendant. (ECF Nos. 354, 357, 366, 372) 16 17 Presently before the Court are Motions to Seal related to the Parties’ cross Motions 18 for Summary Judgment: (1) Plaintiffs 4WEB, Inc. and 4WEB, LLC’s (“4WEB”) Motion 19 to File Under Seal Portions of and Certain Exhibits to Their Memorandum of Points and 20 Authorities in Support of 4Web’s Opposition to NuVasive’s Motion for Summary 21 Judgment (ECF No. 354); (2) Defendant NuVasive, Inc.’s Motion to Seal its Response in 22 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Related Exhibits 1–5, 23 (ECF No. 357); (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal Portions of and Certain Exhibits 24 to Their Reply in Support of Their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 366); 25 and (4) Defendant NuVasive, Inc’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 372) in connection with its 26 Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement 27 of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,271,845, 9,549,823, 9,572,669, 10,849,756 (ECF No. 374). For the 28 reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 4WEB’s Motion to Seal related to its 1 Summary Judgment Opposition (ECF No. 354); GRANTS NuVasive’s Motion to Seal 2 related to its Summary Judgment Opposition (ECF No. 357); GRANTS IN PART 3 4WEB’s Motion to Seal related to its Summary Judgment Reply (ECF No. 366); and 4 GRANTS NuVasive’s Motion to Seal related to its Summary Judgement Reply (ECF No. 5 372). 6 LEGAL STANDARD 7 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 8 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 9 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 10 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 11 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 12 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 13 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 14 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 15 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 16 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 17 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 18 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 19 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 20 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 21 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 22 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 23 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 24 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 25 Under the “compelling reasons” standard, the party seeking protection must “present 26 ‘articulable facts’ identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and . . . show that 27 these specific interests overc[o]me the presumption of access by outweighing the ‘public 28 interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal 1 citations omitted) (first quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136; and then quoting Hagestad v. 2 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “The movant must make this required 3 particularized showing for each document it seeks to seal.” Avnet, Inc. v. Avana Techs. 4 Inc., No. 2:13-CV-00929-GMN, 2014 WL 4181831, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2014) (citing 5 San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). And 6 if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, they must show that their compelling 7 interest cannot be protected by redacting only the sensitive portions of said document. See 8 In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136– 9 37. If, by contrast, compelling reasons do not support sealing an entire document, the 10 movant must offer compelling reasons to seal each portion of the documents they believe 11 should be sealed. See Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 12 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023); see also In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 661 13 F.3d at 425. 14 DISCUSSION 15 I. 4WEB’s Motions 16 4WEB seeks to file under seal portions of its Summary Judgment Opposition (ECF 17 No. 356) and Reply (ECF No. 368) and related exhibits. See ECF Nos. 354, 366. 4WEB 18 asserts that compelling reasons exists to seal portions of its Opposition and certain exhibits 19 submitted with it because the documents “contain confidential and highly sensitive 20 business and technical information relating to the design and development of Defendant’s 21 products,” which, if publicly disclosed, could provide “competitors with this highly 22 sensitive and non-public information.” ECF No. 354 at 2. The Parties have designated 23 this information as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order in this case (ECF No. 19). 24 Id. 4WEB makes the same arguments as to its Reply. ECF No. 366 at 2. 25 The Court notes that 4WEB’s Motions to Seal suffer from the same deficiencies as 26 its Motions to Seal related to the Parties’ Daubert Motions. See ECF No. 381 at 4. 27 However, having reviewed the documents, see ECF Nos. 355, 367, the Court finds that 28 they include sensitive and confidential business information, which courts generally find 1 appropriate to seal when disclosure could “harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 2 435 U.S. at 598. Further, the Court has previously granted leave to file similar information 3 under seal in this case. See ECF No. 380; ECF No. 381. 4 The Court will not, however, grant 4WEB’s request to seal Exhibit 12 to its 5 Summary Judgement Reply or the portions of its Reply quoting the content of Exhibit 12. 6 See ECF No. 367-2. Exhibit 12 is an excerpt of the transcript from the February 6, 2025— 7 public—claim construction hearing before this Court and does not appear to contain any 8 confidential business information. See id. The Court thus does not find compelling reasons 9 to seal this information. 10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4WEB’s Motion to Seal related to its Summary 11 Judgment Opposition (ECF No. 354) and DENIES IN PART 4WEB’s Motion to Seal 12 related to its Summary Judgment Reply (ECF No. 366). The Court again cautions 4WEB 13 to “include sufficient detail as to each document it seeks to seal moving forward, as it is 14 not the responsibility of the Court to search for independent justification to seal each 15 document on the Parties’ behalf.” ECF No. 381 at 4. 16 II. NuVasive’s Motions 17 NuVasive seeks to file under seal portions of its Summary Judgment Opposition 18 (ECF No. 359) and Reply (ECF No. 374) and related exhibits. See ECF Nos. 357, 372. 19 NuVasive asserts that its Opposition and Exhibits 1–5 and 7 contain “sensitive business 20 and financial information,” which, if disclosed, could provide “competitors with highly 21 sensitive commercial information about revenues, profits, marketing, and product 22 development.” ECF No. 357 at 2. NuVasive further asserts that its Reply and Exhibit 26 23 “reveal[] confidential information about NuVasive’s design and product development.” 24 ECF No. 372 at 3. The Court finds that the compelling reasons standard is met, as 25 NuVasive has made a particularized showing as to each document, see ECF No. 357 at 3 26 (describing the information contained in each exhibit); ECF No. 372 at 3 (describing the 27 information contained in Exhibit 26), and its requests are narrowly tailored to the sensitive 28 and confidential business information. See ECF Nos. 358; 373. Further, the Court has 1 || previously granted leave to file similar information under seal in this case. See ECF No. 2 ||380; ECF No. 381. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS NuVasive’s Motions to Seal (ECF 3 || Nos. 357, 372). 4 CONCLUSION 5 In light of the foregoing: 6 (1) The Court GRANTS 4WEB’s Motion to Seal related to its Summary 7 || Judgment Opposition (ECF No. 354) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file under seal 8 || the sealed lodged proposed documents (ECF No. 355). 9 (2) The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART 4WEB’s Motion to 10 related to its Summary Judgment Reply (ECF No. 366). The Court GRANTS the 11 || Motion as to Exhibit 11 and the portions of which referred to in 4WEB’s Reply. The Court 12 || DENIES the Motion as to Exhibit 12 and the portions of which referred to in 4WEB’s 13 ||Reply. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file under seal the sealed lodged 14 || proposed documents (ECF Nos. 367, 367-1). 4WEB SHALL FILE an amended version 15 || of its Reply containing the appropriate redactions in accordance with the Court’s ruling. 16 (3) The Court GRANTS NuVasive’s Motion to Seal related to its Summary 17 || Judgment Opposition (ECF No. 357) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file under seal the 18 sealed lodged proposed documents (ECF No. 358). 19 (4) The Court GRANTS NuVasive’s Motion to Seal related to its Summary 20 || Judgement Reply (ECF No. 372) and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file under seal the 21 sealed lodged proposed documents (ECF No. 373). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 4, 2026 . tt 24 ja Janis L. Sammartino 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28