Buchheim v. Fenton

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BUCHHEIM, et al., Case No.: 3:21-cv-766-L-BGS 10 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL FENTON, et al., (ECF 2) 13 Defendants.

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal portions of their complaint.

16 (ECF 2).

17 The complaint (ECF 1) contains redacted paragraphs. Plaintiffs obtained the redacted information from Nominal Defendant AnaptysBio pursuant to an inspection request under Delaware law. See 8 Del. C. § 220. They were required to sign confidentiality agreements prior to obtaining the records. (ECF 2). The redacted information contains non-public material from board of director meetings, including proprietary information about AnaptysBio’s products, development, commercial processes, scientific data and analyses, and strategies. Id. The disclosure of the information could harm AnaptysBio’s competitive position. Id. And there are no alternatives that would protect that compelling interest.

26 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard on sealing judicial records); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Clerk is instructed to file the ||unredacted complaint (ECF 4) under seal. This case remains stayed pursuant to the || Court’s prior order. (See ECF 27).

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: November 5, 2021 pee ep?

7 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge