Wave Neuroscience, Inc. v. PeakLogic, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff Wave Neuroscience's motion for leave to file under seal various exhibits supporting a renewed motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion to seal all exhibits except Exhibit 9, which it ordered to be filed publicly because it contained no confidential information and rebutted the plaintiff's public assertions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal granted in part (Exhibits 2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30).“Accordingly, the motion to seal Exhibits 2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court applied the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard for sealing judicial records. The court noted that the defendants did not object to the sealing of these specific exhibits and that they pertained to the purchase of patents and assets. In the absence of opposition and with the court's own finding that the materials pertain to confidential business transactions, the decision to seal is consistent with the legal standard. |
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal denied in part (Exhibit 9).“Accordingly, the motion to seal Exhibit 9 is DENIED.” | agree with court The court found that Exhibit 9, an indemnification agreement, did not contain confidential information such as salary or financial data. Furthermore, the court noted that the document rebutted the plaintiff's public assertions regarding the status of Yi Jin. Under the 'compelling reasons' standard, a party must show that the material must be kept secret. The court correctly determined that the lack of confidential content and the public interest in seeing the document rebut the plaintiff's claims did not meet the high bar for sealing. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for sealing judicial records in the Ninth Circuit. It applies the 'compelling reasons' test to the specific facts presented: for the uncontested exhibits, it notes their confidential nature; for the contested exhibit, it finds a lack of confidential content and a public interest in the document's content. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Wave Neuroscience, Inc., a Delaware Case No.: 21cv1330-CAB-AGS corporation, 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, 13 DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR v. LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 14 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS [Doc. Peaklogic, Inc., a Delaware corporation; 15 No. 119 and Kevin T. Murphy, M.D., a 16 Professional Corporation, doing business as Mindset, 17 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 18 19 On July 3, 2023, Plaintiff Wave Neuroscience, Inc. filed a Motion for Leave to File 20 Under Seal Confidential Materials, relating to exhibits in support of a renewed Motion 21 for Summary Judgment. [Doc. No. 119.] On July 3, 2023, Defendants Peaklogic, Inc. 22 and Kevin T. Murphy, M.D. filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, indicating that they 23 oppose the sealing of Exhibit 9 only. [Doc. No. 120.] 24 LEGAL STANDARD 25 Although the Court acknowledges the parties’ desire to maintain the confidentiality 26 of documents produced in discovery, “[w]hen discovery material is filed with the court [] 27 its status changes.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 28 1 2003). The public policy reasons behind a presumption of access to judicial documents 2 apply. Id. The common law and the Constitution afford the public a qualified right of 3 access to judicial records and proceedings. Times Mirror Co. v. U.S., 873. F.2d 1210, 4 1211 n.1 (9th Cir. 1989); Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 5 2010). 6 In the Ninth Circuit there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court 7 records and a party must show compelling reasons to file materials under seal as part of a 8 non-discovery motion, even if they were produced subject to a discovery protective order. 9 See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135-36. Once the protected discovery documents are made part 10 of a dispositive [or non-discovery] motion, “they lose their status of being raw fruits of 11 discovery” and no longer enjoy protected status without some overriding interests in 12 favor of keeping the material confidential. See id., at 1136. 13 Court records should be sealed to keep confidential only what must be kept secret, 14 temporarily or permanently, as the situation requires. The party seeking to file under seal 15 must provide articulable facts showing a compelling reason to limit public access to court 16 filings. That a litigant might be embarrassed or exposed to additional liability or 17 litigation, without more, is not sufficient. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. A court’s decision to 18 seal material must be based on a compelling reason and the order allowing a filing under 19 seal must articulate the factual basis for its ruling without relying on hypothesis or 20 conjecture. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679. “A ‘good cause’ showing will not suffice to fulfill 21 the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of 22 access to dispositive pleadings and attachments.” Id. (citing Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)). 24 DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibits 2, 6, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 26 and 30. Defendants do not object to the sealing of Exhibits 2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, and the Court agrees that those documents may be sealed as 28 they pertain to the purchase of NeoSync’s patents and other assets. Accordingly, the 1 || motion to seal Exhibits 2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, is 2 ||GRANTED. 3 Defendants object to the sealing of Exhibit 9, which is an indemnification 4 ||agreement between Wave and Yi Jin, because it contains no salary information, financial 5 ||information or other confidential information. Defendants further argue that Exhibit 9 6 simply reflects Wave’s June 17, 2019 agreement to indemnify Yi Jin because of his 7 “Corporate Status” with Wave, and this rebuts assertions made publicly in this case by 8 || Wave and it’s CEO that Yi Jin was never an officer or employee of Wave. [Doc. No. 120 9 at 2.] 10 The Court agrees that Exhibit 9 does not contain confidential information and may 11 |/rebut some of Plaintiffs assertions. Accordingly, the motion to seal Exhibit 9 is 12 || DENIED. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, the motion to seal Exhibits 2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 15 || 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, is GRANTED, and the motion to seal Exhibit 9 is 16 || DENIED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: July 7, 2023 € Z 19 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28