Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KIMERA LABS INC, Case No. 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO v. SEAL RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., [Doc. Nos. 431, 434, 439, 442] 16 Defendants.

20 On June 16, 2025, Defendants Raj Jayashankar, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro (Alex) Contreras, and Deb Hubers (collectively, “Defendants”), ex parte, filed two motions to seal their respective responses in opposition to Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Daubert motions concerning expert witnesses Dr. Aejaz Sayeed and Dr. Scott D. Olson.

24 Doc. Nos. 431, 434. That same date, Plaintiff, ex parte, filed two motions to seal, one as to its response opposition to Defendants’ Daubert motion concerning expert witness Dr. Henry M. Furneaux, and the other as to its response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 439, 442. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to seal.

1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This action arises over allegations of corporate espionage and trade secret misappropriation. Doc. No. 51 (“SAC”) ¶ 2. Plaintiff “is an FDA-registered tissue processing laboratory that specializes in scientific research . . . .” Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges that, by way of a then-employee familiar with its confidential processes, Defendants Jayashankar, Contreras, and Hubers “misappropriate[ed] and use[d] . . .

7 [Plaintiff’s] trade secrets and other confidential information to create Exocel Bio, a competing business[,] to manufacture and sell the same kind of product as [Plaintiff].”

9 Id. ¶ 2.

10 Plaintiff filed its initial complaint on December 28, 2021, an amended complaint on May 11, 2022, and the operative second amended complaint on November 10, 2022.

12 See Doc. Nos. 1, 31, 51. Plaintiff brings two causes of action under the Federal Trade Secrets Act and one count of unjust enrichment under Florida law. SAC ¶¶ 14–68. A hearing on the parties’ respective Daubert motions and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is currently set for June 30, 2025.

16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.”

22 Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted).

23 Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). For filings more than tangentially relevant to the case’s merits, that presumption can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweigh[s] the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95.

1 For filings that do not meet this “tangential relevance” threshold, the Court applies a “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097–1102 (9th Cir. 2016).

4 III. DISCUSSION 5 As a preliminary matter, and as it has in prior orders sealing documents related to the pending Daubert and summary judgment motions, the Court finds that the “compelling reason” standard discussed above applies to the motions to seal. See Doc.

8 No. 422 at 3; Doc. No. 397 at 4. Generally, “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “Courts have held that ‘confidential business information’ in the form of ‘license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies’ also satisfies the compelling reasons standard.” Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan.

17 12, 2024). This includes confidential information about business profits, expenditures, and losses. See Pulse Elecs., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. Corp., 530 F. Supp. 3d 988, 1030–31 (S.D. Cal. 2021), aff’d, No. 2021-1856, 2022 WL 1436146 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022).

20 A. Defendants’ Motions 21 Defendants seek to seal their respective responses in opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert motions concerning expert witnesses Drs. Sayeed and Olson. Doc. Nos. 431, 434. Defendants represent that Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to either motion. Doc.

24 No. 431 at 4; Doc. No. 434 at 4.1 1 In their motions to seal, Defendants repeat their argument that Plaintiff “has failed to identify a legally protectable trade secret . . .” and that thus sealing is unnecessary. Doc. No. 431 at 4; Doc. No. 434 at 4.

27 The Court, as it has before, finds that “[t]o rule on this basis [on a motion to seal] would be, in effect, to rule on summary judgment, and to wait until summary judgment to rule on the motion to seal would be 1 The Court begins with Defendants’ response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert motion concerning Dr. Sayeed. Doc. Nos. 432, 433. Upon review, the portions Defendants seek to seal contain detailed discussion and description of Plaintiff’s confidential processes and methods. Compare Doc. No. 432 at 19 with Doc. No. 433 at 19. This content is minimal compared to the filing as a whole, and Defendants thus provide a public version redacting only the minimum confidential information. See generally Doc. No. 433. The exhibits sealed alongside also contain detailed discussion as to Plaintiff’s purportedly confidential processes in the form of discovery responses and excerpted deposition portions, in an amount rendering mere redaction inefficient and impracticable. Doc. No. 432-2–432–3. Sealing the material is therefore proper.

11 The Court next examines Defendants’ response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert motion concerning Dr. Olson. Doc. Nos. 435, 436. The sealed portions contain information involving the details of Plaintiff’s manufacturing processes. Compare Doc.

14 No. 435 at 8 with Doc. No. 436 at 8. The exhibits sealed alongside similarly contain detailed discussion as to Plaintiff’s confidential processes and appear to be identical to those they seek to seal in their motion concerning Dr. Sayeed, discussed above. Compare Doc. No. 432-2–432–3 with Doc. No. 435-2–435–3. As with that response in opposition, Defendants here submit a publicly filed version, redacting only the amount of content necessary to preserve these processes’ confidential nature. See generally Doc. No. 436.

20 This material is appropriate for sealing. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motions to seal.

22 B. Plaintiff’s Motions 23 Turning to Plaintiff’s motions, it seeks to seal its responses in opposition to Defendants’ Daubert motion concerning Dr. Furneaux and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 439, 442. Plaintiff represents that Defendants do not object to its motions to seal. Doc. No. 439 at 2; Doc. No. 442 at 2.

27 As to Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendants’ Daubert motion, the materials Plaintiff seeks to seal generally contain detailed information about its || confidential business processes. Compare Doc. No. 438 at 5 with Doc. No. 440 at 5; || compare Doc. No. 438 at 13-14 with Doc. No. 440 at 13-14 ; but see Doc. No. 438 at 10; || Doc. No. 440 at 10. Plaintiff likewise filed a public version of its opposition, redacting ||minimal amounts of information. Doc. No. 438. Sealing is therefore appropriate.

5 Finally, the material Plaintiff seeks to seal within its response in opposition to || Defendants’ motion for summary judgment falls within similar lines. These portions || discuss, in detail and depth, the purportedly confidential production processes at the case’s heart. Compare Doc. No. 441 at 9-14 with Doc. No. 443 at 9-14. The same is || true of most exhibits it seeks to seal in support of that response. Compare Doc. No. 441- || 1 with Doc. No. 443-1; Compare Doc. No. 441-10 at 14 with Doc. No. 443-10 at 14; see 11 Nos. 443-2, 443-15, 443-18, 443-21-443-22. Other sealed exhibits discuss || confidential business information. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 443-9,443-16, 443-30. Plaintiff |/also filed a public version of its opposition and, where practicable, public versions of its || proposed sealed exhibits—each with redactions limited to the specific sensitive ||information.? See generally Doc. No. 441; see, e.g., Doc. Nos. 441-3, 441-8, 441-26.

16 || Thus, sealing is proper, and the Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's motions.

17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to file under seal and || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. Nos. 432, 435, 440, and 443, and their || respective attachments, under seal.

21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 Dated: June 23, 2025 Miku M- / hphlr 23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 24 United States District Judge 27 —__sSsSsSsSsSsSsSss ||° For ease, the parties may file exhibit cover pages noting that it seeks to file exhibits or pages under seal, rather than file exhibits with entire pages redacted. See, e.g. Doc. No. 441-1; Doc. No. 441-18.