Fate Therapeutics, Inc. v. Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FATE THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al., Case No.: 3:22-cv-00676-RBM-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 13 v. SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC.’s MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 14 SHORELINE BIOSCIENCES, INC., et DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL al., 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. 34] 17 18 Presently before the Court is a motion to seal filed by Defendant Shoreline 19 Biosciences, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Doc. 34.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s 20 motion is GRANTED. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 27 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 28 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 1 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 2 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 3 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 4 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 5 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 6 presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this 7 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 8 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 9 When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 10 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does 11 not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 12 The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can 13 show that the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as 14 the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 15 statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 16 U.S. at 598). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of 17 the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular 18 case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 19 Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being 20 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 21 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 22 documents for, inter alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, 23 development, or commercial information.’” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 12-cv-2885- 24 LHK, 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 25 269(c)(1)(G)). 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Defendant seeks to seal: (1) Exhibit T filed in support of Defendant’s counterclaims; 28 and (2) references to the contents of Exhibit T, including in paragraphs 112–13, 115–17, 1 || 136, 163, 205, 234, 280, and 308 of Defendant’s counterclaims. (Doc. 34 at 3; see also 2 || Doc. 36 (Defendant’s Answer and Counterclaims).) Because Defendant’s counterclaims 3 “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,” the compelling reasons 4 ||standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. Defendant states that “Exhibit T 5 ||is a confidential business record that contains sensitive information and data related to the 6 ||development of Shoreline’s products, the public disclosure of which could impact 7 || Shoreline’s competitive standing.” (Doc. 34 at 3; Doc. 34-1 4 2.) Defendant further states 8 it has redacted only that information in Exhibit T which is commercially sensitive. 9 || (Doc. 34 at 3.) 10 The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the information subject to Defendant’s 11 ||motion. Having reviewed Defendant’s proposed redactions to its counterclaims, along with 12 ||the content of Exhibit T, the Court finds the proposed redactions and sealing request 13 ||narrowly tailored to protect only that information directly related to Defendant’s 14 commercially sensitive information. Additionally, the Court finds that the information, if 15 disclosed, could potentially hurt Defendants’ competitive standing. See Obesity Rsch. 16 ||Jnst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int’l, LLC, No. 15-CV-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 1035730, at *3 17 ||(S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (granting motion to seal documents where court found such 18 information “could be improperly used” by competitors). 19 Hl. CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal. (Doc. 34.) On or 21 || before October 14, 2022, Defendant shall file its counterclaims on the public docket with 22 ||redactions consistent with this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to accept and file 23 || under seal the lodged documents (Doc. 35). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATE: October 7, 2022

27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28