Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC

No. 21-cv-02419-BLF (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2025) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · September 17, 2025 · No. 21-cv-02419-BLF

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on Impossible Foods Inc.’s administrative motions to seal materials related to an opposition to a motion for partial summary judgment. The court granted the motion to file under seal and granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning another party’s confidential material, applying the compelling-reasons standard. All denials were without prejudice, with refiling deadlines set for September 29, 2025.

Holdings

  1. Because the materials were more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, a party seeking to seal them had to show compelling reasons, in addition to complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
  2. The motion to file under seal was granted because the identified portions contained confidential financial information and marketing strategies whose disclosure could cause competitive harm, and the request was narrowly tailored.
  3. The motion was granted in part and denied in part: specified portions containing confidential financial, pricing, product-formula, and other commercially sensitive information were sealed, while overbroad requests and materials lacking a valid sealing basis were denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether portions of Impossible Foods' opposition to defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and an attached exhibit should be sealed under the compelling-reasons standard.
  2. Whether materials designated confidential by defendants should be sealed, and whether the requested redactions were sufficiently supported and narrowly tailored under Civil Local Rule 79-5.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)(followed)
  • Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097, 1099-1102 (9th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 22-cv-04844, 2023 WL 4983670, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2023)(followed)
  • Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)(followed)
  • Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)(followed)
  • In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…