Medimpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California ORDER GRANTING limited liability company, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO HONG KONG LTD., a Hong Kong L.R. 79.2 company, 14 [DKT. NO. 113.]

Plaintiffs, v. IQVIA INC., a Connecticut corporation, IQVIA LTD., a UK company, IQVIA AG, a Swiss company, OMAR GHOSHEH, individually, AMIT SADANA individually, and DOES 1- 20, 20 Defendants.

1 ORDER 2 Before the Court 1s Defendants’ Motion to Seal the following documents: (i) | portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First | Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(2) (“Reply”) and (ii) portions of the declaration | of Amit Sadana (“Sadana Declaration”) filed concurrently with Defendants’ Reply in | Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Under Rule | 12(6)).

8 The Motion to Seal seeks to have certain portions of the Reply and Sadana | Declaration permanently sealed from public view because they were generated or | produced in, or otherwise relate to, prior confidential arbitration proceedings before the | Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration and | because they contain sensitive, non-public confidential business information, the | disclosure of which would subject Plaintiffs and third-parties to a risk of substantial || harm or prejudice. These portions include excerpts from the Arbitral Tribunal’s Partial | Final Award and descriptions of confidential business agreements, both of which detail | confidential business information belonging to, among others Defendants, non-party | Dimensions, and other non-party contracting entities. See McArdle v. AT&T Mobility | LLC, No. 09-cv-1117 CW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218070, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, | 2018) (finding “compelling reasons” to seal arbitration documents).

20 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds there exist compelling reasons to seal the || requested information, submitted in support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion | to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Under Rules 12(b)(2), and Defendants || Motion to Seal is therefore GRANTED. It is ORDERED that identified portions shall | be SEALED until further order of this Court.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2020 7 sale 0s ( Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 38 United States District Judge