1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || STA PHARMACEDTICALS US, LLC, Case No.: 24-cv-2426-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff,| ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 5 || y. SEAL (ECF 17) AND DENYING REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED 6 || Phuong Hoai NGUYEN, DISCOVERY (ECF 19-1) 7 Defendants. 8 In connection with its preliminary-injunction motion, plaintiff STA Pharmaceuticals 9 ||US, LLC, moves to seal Exhibit A to Yu Lu’s declaration and portions of Britton Moore’s 10 declaration. The public has a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 11 documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc.,

(1978). “A party seeking 12 |/to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing 13 sufficiently compelling reasons that override the public policies favoring disclosure.” In re 14 || Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig.,

(9th Cir. 2012); 15 || see also Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) 16 || (applying the “compelling reasons” standard to a preliminary-injunction motion that was 17 || “more than tangentially related to the merits” of the case). STA’s sealing motion is tailored 18 |/to protect only information that is sufficiently identified as trade secrets or confidential 19 || third-party information. Thus, the motion is GRANTED. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2011) (“The publication of materials that could result in 21 ||infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome 22 strong presumption in favor of access to documents.”). 23 The request for expedited discovery (see ECF 19-1, at 24) is DENIED without 24 || prejudice. STA may renew this request with the Magistrate Judge. 25 ||Dated: September 18, 2025 26 | □ 7 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28