Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc. moved to file a supplemental declaration under seal in support of its pending motion for preliminary injunction. The court granted the motion, finding good cause to seal the document.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to file supplemental declaration under seal granted“Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion to seal, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's supplemental declaration (Doc. No. 71) under seal.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for sealing records attached to nondispositive motions, citing the strong presumption of public access and the requirement to show good cause. The order states that good cause appeared, which is the required finding. While the specific facts constituting good cause are not detailed in this order, the procedural mechanism and legal test are correctly identified and applied. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit. It cites the controlling precedent regarding the presumption of public access and the 'good cause' exception for nondispositive motions. The court explicitly states that it reviewed the motion and found good cause, which satisfies the procedural requirement. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for this type of procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KIMERA LABS INC., Case No. 21-cv-2137-MMA (DEB)
13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 14 v. SEAL 15 RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., [Doc. No. 70] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Raj Jayashankar, 21 Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro Contreras, and Deb Hubers (collectively, “Defendants”) 22 asserting, generally, that Defendants misappropriated its trade secrets in violation of 23 Florida law and 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. See Doc. No. 51. On February 21, 2023, 24 Plaintiff filed a motion to file under seal an emergency motion for temporary restraining 25 order (“TRO”). See Doc. Nos. 58, 59. On February 22, 2023, Defendants filed a motion 26 to convert Plaintiff’s emergency motion for TRO to a motion for preliminary injunction. 27 Doc. No. 63. On the same date, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal 28 and Defendants’ motion, and converted Plaintiff’s emergency motion for TRO to a 1 |}motion for preliminary injunction. See Doc. Nos. 61, 69. Plaintiff now wishes to file a 2 supplemental declaration in support of its motion for preliminary injunction, see Doc. No. 3 under seal, see Doc. No. 70. 4 The strong presumption in favor of public access to court records, Phillips v. Gen. 5 || Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002), may be rebutted by a showing of 6 || good cause to seal records attached to nondispositive motions, Kamakana v. City and 7 || Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed Plaintiff's 8 || motion to seal, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the 9 || Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's supplemental declaration (Doc. No. 71) under seal. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: February 27, 2023 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28