Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KIMERA LABS INC., Case No.: 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 11 v. SEAL 12 RAJ JAYSHANKAR, et al., [Docs. 483, 489, 494] 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendants Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro Contreras, 17 Deb Hubers, and Raj Jayashankar’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Seal 18 Forthcoming Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Limited Reconsideration 19 of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment 20 (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 483); (2) Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) 21 Motion to Seal its Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration 22 (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 489); and (3) Defendants’ Motion to Seal Forthcoming 23 Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Limited Reconsideration of Order Granting in 24 Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal 25 Reply”) (Doc. 494). All three Motions to Seal are unopposed. (See Doc. 483 at 2; Doc. 26 489 at 2; Doc. 494 at 2.) 27 For the reasons set forth below, the Parties’ Motions to Seal (Docs. 483, 489, 494) 28 are GRANTED. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 4 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 5 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 6 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 7 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 8 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 9 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 10 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 11 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 12 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 13 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 14 presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this 15 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 16 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 17 When the underlying motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case[,]” 18 the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98, 1102. If the underlying motion 19 does not surpass the tangentially related threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Defendants filed two Motions to Seal—one for their Motion for Limited 22 Reconsideration of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary 23 Judgment (“Motion for Reconsideration”), and the other for their Reply in support of their 24 Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 483, 494.) Plaintiff seeks to seal its “opposition to 25 Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration with partial redactions.” (Doc. 489 at 2.) 26 In all three Motions to Seal, the Parties move the Court to seal limited portions of 27 their briefs that pertain to Plaintiff’s alleged trade secret, which Plaintiff designated as 28 confidential business information. (See Doc. 483 at 4; Doc. 489 at 2; Doc. 494 at 4–5.) 1 Because the Parties’ proposed redactions concern the same information, the Court 2 considers all three Motions to Seal concurrently. 3 Judge Michael M. Anello previously ruled on several similar motions to seal related 4 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Doc. 422 at 5; Doc. 454 at 3–5; Doc. 5 466 at 2–3; Doc. 470 at 2–3.) In doing so, Judge Anello applied the “compelling reason” 6 standard and determined that “information concerning Plaintiff’s purportedly confidential 7 production processes—which it asserts are trade secrets—or information concerning 8 profits and sales. . . . is of the type properly sealed.” (Doc. 466 at 2–3; see Doc. 454 at 5 9 (finding materials in opposition to “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment . . . discuss, 10 in detail and depth, the purportedly confidential production processes at the case’s heart.”).) 11 Here, the underlying motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment 12 ruling and is therefore “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for 13 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. The Parties seek to seal the same information redacted in 14 their summary judgment briefing which “necessarily describes and/or attaches information 15 and documents produced by [Plaintiff] in this litigation that [Plaintiff] maintains constitutes 16 trade secret information or, if made publicly available, would disclose aspects of 17 information that [Plaintiff] alleges as trade secret information.” (Doc. 483 at 2; see Doc. 18 489 at 2; Doc. 494 at 4–5.) Plaintiff, as the designating party, confirmed that “the 19 information identified . . . must be filed under seal.” (Doc. 483 at 2; Doc. 494 at 2.) The 20 Parties have also publicly filed redacted versions of their reconsideration briefing and their 21 proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to preserve the confidential nature of Plaintiff’s 22 alleged trade secret processes. (See Docs. 485, 491, 496.) 23 The Court therefore adopts the reasoning in Judge Anello’s prior orders and applies 24 it here. (See Doc. 422 at 5; Doc. 454 at 3–5; Doc. 466 at 2–3; Doc. 470 at 2–3.) For those 25 same reasons, the Court finds: (1) the “compelling reason” standard applies to the instant 26 Motions to Seal; and (2) the potential disclosure of trade secrets is a “compelling reason[ ] 27 to . . . seal[ ] court records.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S.at 28 598). Sealing these materials is therefore proper. l Ht. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing reasons, and for good cause, the Parties’ Motions to Seal 3 ||(Docs. 483, 489, and 494) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file 4 || Docs. 484, 490, and 495, and their respective attachments under seal. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 ||DATE: June 16, 2026 Fat Bormads, MoatanyyD 8 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28