1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KIMERA LABS INC, Case No. 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL

13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL REPLIES AND OBJECTIONS 15 RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., 16 Defendants. [Doc. Nos. 445, 450] 17 18 19 On June 23, 2025, Defendants Exocel Bio Inc., Raj Jayashankar, Alejandro (Alex) 20 Contreras, and Deb Hubers (collectively “Defendants”), ex parte, filed two motions to 21 seal, one seeking to seal portions of their objections to Plaintiff’s counter-statement of 22 facts and portions of their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, and the 23 other seeking to seal portions of their reply in support of their motion to exclude 24 Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Henry Furneaux. Doc. Nos. 445, 450. Each motion indicates that 25 Plaintiff does not oppose it, and Defendants filed redacted versions of each document on 26 the public docket. Doc. No. 445 at 4; Doc. No. 450 at 4; see Doc. Nos. 448–49, 452. 27 Having ruled on several such motions, the Court will forgo a recitation of the relevant 28 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 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 4 Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 5 Commc’ns, Inc.,

, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often 6 provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” 7 Oliner v. Kontrabecki,

(9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 8 Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of 9 access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield 10 Museum & Store,

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 11 1178). For filings more than tangentially relevant to the case’s merits, that presumption 12 can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweigh[s] the 13 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 15 “good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 16 1097–1102 (9th Cir. 2016). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 For the same reasons discussed in its prior orders sealing documents related to the 19 pending Daubert and summary judgment motions, the Court finds that the “compelling 20 reason” standard applies to the motions to seal. See Doc. No. 454 at 3; Doc. No. 422 at 3; 21 Doc. No. 397 at 4. Generally, “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 22 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might 23 have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 24 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 25 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon,

). “Courts have 26 held that ‘confidential business information’ in the form of ‘license agreements, financial 27 terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies’ also satisfies 28 the compelling reasons standard.” Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 1

*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024). This includes confidential information 2 about business profits, expenditures, and losses. See Pulse Elecs., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. 3 || Corp.,

, 1030-31 (S.D. Cal. 2021), aff'd, No. 2021-1856,

|| 1436146 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022). 5 Starting with their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, the 6 || portions Defendants seek to seal discuss Plaintiff's purportedly confidential production 7 || process. Compare Doc. No. 446 at 3-4, 8-9 with Doc. No. 448 at 3-4, 8-9. The public 8 || version of this filing contains only minimal redactions necessary to prevent disclosure of 9 || Plaintiff's purportedly confidential processes. See Doc. No. 448. Thus, sealing is proper. 10 Turning next to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff's counter-statement of facts, the 11 same is true: the redacted portions contain discussion of Plaintiff's purportedly 12 || confidential processes, and their publicly filed version is redacted only insofar as is 13 ||necessary to protect this information. Compare Doc. No. 449 at 5—6 with Doc. No. 447 14 || at S—6; see generally Doc. No. 449. Sealing the material is therefore appropriate. 15 Finally, turning to Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to exclude Dr. 16 || Furneax, the portions subject to the motion likewise discuss Plaintiff's confidential 17 || processes, and are exceedingly minimal. Compare Doc. No. 452 at 9 with Doc. No. 451 18 9. The public version likewise contains minimal redactions. See generally Doc. No. 19 ||452. Accordingly, sealing this material is proper. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 For these reasons, the Court determines that sealing is appropriate and GRANTS 22 ||the motions to file under seal. It further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. Nos. 23 ||446, 447, and 451 under seal. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||Dated: June 26, 2025 Miku M- / hihtlr 26 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 07 United States District Judge 28