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 two administrative motions concerning the sealing of materials related to Impossible Foods Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment. The court granted the motion to seal Impossible Foods' materials and granted in part and denied in part the motion concerning materials designated confidential by defendants. The court applied the compelling-reasons standard and ordered refiling of certain materials by September 29, 2025.

Holdings

  1. Materials submitted with a motion for partial summary judgment that are more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only upon a showing of compelling reasons.
  2. Compelling reasons supported sealing the identified portions of Impossible Foods Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment and exhibits because they contained confidential marketing and financial information whose disclosure could harm Impossible Foods' competitive standing.
  3. Compelling reasons supported sealing specified portions of Defendants' materials containing competitively sensitive business information and personally identifiable information, but unsupported portions were not sealed.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether portions of Impossible Foods Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment and supporting exhibits containing confidential marketing and financial information should be sealed.
  2. Whether materials designated confidential by Defendants should be sealed under the compelling-reasons standard and Civil Local Rule 79-5.
  3. Whether the requested sealing was narrowly tailored to protect competitively sensitive business information and personally identifiable information.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • 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, 1099-1102 (9th Cir. 2016)(applied)
  • Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 22-cv-04844, 2023 WL 4983670, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2023)(applied)
  • Jam Cellars, Inc. v. Wine Grp. LLC, No. 19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 5576346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020)(applied)
  • Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-cv-00220, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)(applied)
  • In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008)(applied)
  • Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021)(applied)
  • Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 17-CV-03962, 2022 WL 1180214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022)(applied)
  • UnifySCC v. Cody, No. 22-cv-01019, 2023 WL 6998184, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2023)(applied)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…