Buchheim v. Fenton
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to seal portions of their complaint containing non-public, proprietary information obtained under Delaware law subject to confidentiality agreements. The court granted the motion and ordered the unredacted complaint filed under seal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to seal portions of the complaint granted“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.” | agree with court The court found that the redacted information contained non-public, proprietary material (board meeting minutes, scientific data, strategies) obtained under a confidentiality agreement, that disclosure would harm the company's competitive position, and that no alternatives existed. This satisfies the Ninth Circuit's standard for sealing judicial records, which requires a compelling interest and a lack of alternatives. The order cites the correct authorities for this standard. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's standard for sealing judicial records. It identifies the specific nature of the confidential information (proprietary, non-public, obtained under confidentiality agreements), the potential harm (competitive position), and the lack of alternatives. The cited authorities are appropriate and binding for this issue in the Ninth Circuit. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a sealing motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BUCHHEIM, et al., Case No.: 3:21-cv-766-L-BGS 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL 12 FENTON, et al., (ECF 2) 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of their complaint. 16 (ECF 2). 17 The complaint (ECF 1) contains redacted paragraphs. Plaintiffs obtained the 18 redacted information from Nominal Defendant AnaptysBio pursuant to an inspection 19 request under Delaware law. See 8 Del. C. § 220. They were required to sign 20 confidentiality agreements prior to obtaining the records. (ECF 2). The redacted 21 information contains non-public material from board of director meetings, including 22 proprietary information about AnaptysBio’s products, development, commercial 23 processes, scientific data and analyses, and strategies. Id. The disclosure of the 24 information could harm AnaptysBio’s competitive position. Id. And there are no 25 alternatives that would protect that compelling interest. 26 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 27 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th 28 Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard on sealing judicial records); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 1 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clerk is instructed to file the 2 ||unredacted complaint (ECF 4) under seal. This case remains stayed pursuant to the 3 || Court’s prior order. (See ECF 27). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 5, 2021 pee ep? 7 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28