Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-02137 · 2023-02-22 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Michael M. Anello (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:08Z · confidence high

Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc. moved to seal its emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in a trade secret misappropriation case. The court granted the motion, finding good cause to seal the document.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to 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 motion (Doc. No. 59) under seal.”	agree with court The court applied the correct legal standard for sealing non-dispositive motions in the Ninth Circuit, which requires a showing of 'good cause' to overcome the presumption of public access. The order explicitly states that 'good cause appearing,' which satisfies the procedural requirement for granting such a motion. While the specific facts constituting good cause are not detailed in the order, the legal framework and the conclusion are consistent with established law.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to 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 motion (Doc. No. 59) under seal.”

agree with court
The court applied the correct legal standard for sealing non-dispositive motions in the Ninth Circuit, which requires a showing of 'good cause' to overcome the presumption of public access. The order explicitly states that 'good cause appearing,' which satisfies the procedural requirement for granting such a motion. While the specific facts constituting good cause are not detailed in the order, the legal framework and the conclusion are consistent with established law.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Phillips and Kamakana) and applies it to the specific motion before the court. It finds that the requisite 'good cause' exists, which is the correct legal test for sealing non-dispositive motions. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for this type of procedural order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

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. 58] 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Raj 20 Jayashankar, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro Contreras, Deb Hubers, and Craig Evan Winkels 21 (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting, generally, that Defendants misappropriated its 22 trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1836 et seq. See Doc. No. 31. Plaintiff now 23 wishes to file an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, see Doc. No. 59, 24 under seal, see Doc. No. 58. 25 The strong presumption in favor of public access to court records, Phillips v. Gen. 26 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002), may be rebutted by a showing of 27 good cause to seal records attached to nondispositive motions, Kamakana v. City and 28 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s | |} motion to seal, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the 2 || Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 59) under seal. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: February 22, 2023 5 Mitek MM - Jills 6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28