Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to seal portions of their reply brief and a supporting declaration, arguing the documents contained confidential arbitration records and sensitive business information. The court granted the motion, finding compelling reasons to seal the identified portions until further order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to File Under Seal (Dkt. No. 113) is granted.“Defendants’ Motion to Seal is therefore GRANTED. It is ORDERED that identified portions shall be SEALED until further order of this Court.” | agree with court The court applied the 'compelling reasons' standard, which is the correct legal test for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit. The court relied on the specific nature of the documents (arbitration awards and confidential business information) to justify the seal. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and applies the appropriate 'compelling reasons' standard for sealing. However, it is a very brief order that relies on a single, non-binding district court case (McArdle) without citing the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (e.g., Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu) that establishes the 'compelling reasons' test. While the result is defensible, the reasoning is thin and lacks citation to binding authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB SYSTEMS, INC., a California 11 corporation, MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California ORDER GRANTING 12 limited liability company, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO 13 HONG KONG LTD., a Hong Kong L.R. 79.2 company, 14 [DKT. NO. 113.] Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 IQVIA INC., a Connecticut corporation, 17 IQVIA LTD., a UK company, IQVIA AG, a Swiss company, OMAR 18 GHOSHEH, individually, AMIT SADANA individually, and DOES 1- 19 20, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Before the Court 1s Defendants’ Motion to Seal the following documents: (i) 3 | portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First 4 | Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(2) (“Reply”) and (ii) portions of the declaration 5 | of Amit Sadana (“Sadana Declaration”) filed concurrently with Defendants’ Reply in 6 | Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Under Rule 7 | 12(6)). 8 The Motion to Seal seeks to have certain portions of the Reply and Sadana 9 | Declaration permanently sealed from public view because they were generated or 10 | produced in, or otherwise relate to, prior confidential arbitration proceedings before the 11 | Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration and 12 | because they contain sensitive, non-public confidential business information, the 13 | disclosure of which would subject Plaintiffs and third-parties to a risk of substantial 14 || harm or prejudice. These portions include excerpts from the Arbitral Tribunal’s Partial 15 | Final Award and descriptions of confidential business agreements, both of which detail 16 | confidential business information belonging to, among others Defendants, non-party 17 | Dimensions, and other non-party contracting entities. See McArdle v. AT&T Mobility 18 | LLC, No. 09-cv-1117 CW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218070, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 19 | 2018) (finding “compelling reasons” to seal arbitration documents). 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds there exist compelling reasons to seal the 21 || requested information, submitted in support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion 22 | to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Under Rules 12(b)(2), and Defendants 23 || Motion to Seal is therefore GRANTED. It is ORDERED that identified portions shall 24 | be SEALED until further order of this Court. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 5, 2020 7 sale 0s ( Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 38 United States District Judge 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