Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties’ motions to file under seal materials relating to Daubert motions and a motion for summary judgment in a trade-secret misappropriation action. The court found compelling reasons to seal confidential trade-secret information, business processes, financial figures, and related damages information, while determining that redaction was appropriate in some filings and ineffective in others. The court also granted the parties’ joint motion to strike two filings and ordered corrected versions to be filed by May 16, 2025.
Holdings
- For filings more than tangentially related to the merits, sealing is proper when compelling reasons outweigh the public's strong presumptive right of access; confidential trade secrets, business processes, and certain confidential financial and business information may constitute compelling reasons for sealing.
- The court granted the parties' joint motion to strike the specified filings and permitted corrected versions to be filed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the parties established sufficient grounds under the applicable sealing standard to file specified motions and exhibits under seal.
- Whether the court should grant the parties' joint motion to strike two docket filings and permit corrected versions to be filed.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (8)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)(background)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 & n.7 (1978)(followed)
- Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- United States v. Business of Custer Battlefield Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Settrini v. City of San Diego, No. 320CV02273RBMBGS, 2022 WL 6785755, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)(followed)
- Nia v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024)(followed)
- Pulse Electronics, Inc. v. U.D. Electronic Corp., 530 F. Supp. 3d 988, 1030-31 (S.D. Cal. 2021)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.