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 REPLY BRIEFS RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., [Doc. Nos. 457, 462] 16 Defendants.

19 On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”), ex parte, filed two motions to seal portions of its replies in support of its Daubert motions concerning Defendants Raj Jayashankar’s, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro (Alex) Contreras, and Deb Hubers’ (collectively, “Defendants”) expert witnesses, Drs. Scott D. Olson and Aejaz Sayeed. Doc. Nos. 457, 462. Each motion indicates that Defendants do not oppose it, and a redacted version of each brief has been filed on the public docket. Doc. No. 457 at 2; Doc. No. 462 at 2; see Doc. Nos. 456, 460. As the Court has now ruled on several such motions, by both parties, at this stage in proceedings, it will forgo a recitation of the relevant background. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to seal.

1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “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.”

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

8 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.

14 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).

17 II. DISCUSSION 18 For the same reasons discussed in its prior orders sealing documents related to the pending Daubert and summary judgment motions, the Court finds that the “compelling reason” standard applies to the motions to seal. See Doc. No. 454 at 3; Doc. 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, 435 U.S. at 598). “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. 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 4 || 1436146 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022).

5 Upon review of the documents subject to the motion, the Court finds the portions || that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal contain information concerning its purportedly || confidential production processes—which it asserts are trade secrets—or information || concerning profits and sales. Compare Doc. No. 459 at 4.4, 8 with Doc. No. 456 at 4 ||n.4, 8; Compare Doc. No. 460 at 4, 6 with Doc. No. 463 at 4, 6. This information, as || discussed above, is of the type properly sealed. Plaintiff also filed publicly available || versions of each document it seeks to seal, redacting in general only as much information || as is relevant to protect the confidential information within.

13 III. CONCLUSION 14 For these reasons, the Court determines that sealing is appropriate and GRANTS 15 motions to file under seal. It further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. Nos. 16 and 463 under seal.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 ||Dated: June 25, 2025 Miku M- / hphlr 19 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 20 United States District Judge