4WEB, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4WEB, INC. and 4WEB, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-01021-JLS-MMP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL NUVASIVE, INC., [ECF No. 121] 15 Defendant.

18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Motion to File Under Seal: Joint Motion for Determination of 4WEB’s Discovery Dispute Requesting NuVasive to Produce Product Samples and Documents” (hereinafter, “Joint Motion to File Under Seal”). [ECF No. 121.] The parties seek to seal portions of the Joint Motion for Determination of 4WEB’s Discovery Dispute (“Discovery Motion”) that NuVasive considers highly confidential, non-public business information about its production and sales of the Accused Products. [Id.] As part of the Joint Motion to File Under Seal, the parties included a proposed Public Redacted Version of the Discovery Motion.1 [Id. at 6–28.]

1 The redacted version of a motion is generally filed separately on the public docket as a 1 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, courts begin with the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

9 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101, 1102. Where the underlying motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits,” there must be “compelling reasons” to overcome the public’s right of access. Id. at 1096–99, 1102. Where the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, materials may be sealed only upon a showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097–99, 1101–02. For discovery documents attached to non- dispositive motions (i.e., motions that are not more than tangentially related to the merits), “the usual presumption of the public’s right of access [to court filings] is rebutted.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); see Ctr.

21 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. A particularized showing of “good cause” will suffice versions, as applicable). The Declaration of Christopher A. Pinahs, ECF No. 122-1 (“Declaration”), and Exhibits A through D, ECF No. 122-2 (“Exhibits”), were lodged under seal; however, the parties did not move to seal either document. [See ECF No. 121 at 1 (jointly moving to “to file under seal portions of the Joint Motion for Determination of 4WEB’s Discovery Dispute”).] The Court provides instructions on addressing these ||to seal documents produced in discovery. Kamakana y. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 || F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).

3 Because the underlying motion relates to discovery, the Court finds the motion does ||not surpass the tangential relevance threshold and therefore applies the “good cause” standard. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (“Applying the presumption of access in such a || circumstance would undermine a district court’s power to fashion effective protective || orders.”); Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180) (“Applying the good cause standard from Rule 26(c) as an exception for discovery-related ||motions makes sense, as the private interests of litigants are ‘the only weights on the 10 scale.’’).

11 The Court finds good cause exists to file portions of the parties’ Discovery Motion || under seal. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 13 1. The Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion to File Under Seal, ECF No. 15 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file ECF No. 122 under seal.

16 3. To ensure accuracy of the docket, the Court ORDERS no later than February 17 2025, Plaintiffs shall file their Public Redacted Version of the Discovery Motion 18 accompanied by the supporting Declaration and Exhibits previously lodged under seal as || ECF Nos. 122-1 and 122-2, as a separate, standalone motion on the public docket. In the || event the parties intended to also move to seal either the Declaration or the Exhibits, they 21 file a renewed motion seeking such relief and file redacted versions of the documents 22 part of the standalone Public Redacted Version of the Discovery Motion.

23 IT IS SO ORDERED.

24 || Dated: February 20, 2025 VA rf wl. My. x7 25 HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT United States Magistrate Judge