govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_21-cv-02137-12

-1- 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
KIMERA LABS INC, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
RAJ JAYASHANKAR, et al., 
Defendants. 

 
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE 
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO 
REFILING 
 
[Doc. No. 394] 
 
On May 2, 2025, Defendants Raj Jayashankar, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro (Alex) 
Contreras, and Deb Hubers (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion, ex parte, to file 
under seal their forthcoming motion brought pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow 
Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Doc. No. 394. Defendants represent that Plaintiff 
Kimera Labs Inc. (“Plaintiff”) does not oppose their motion to seal. Id. at 2. For the 
reasons below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion without prejudice to refiling. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 397 Filed 05/02/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 4
 
 -2- 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 
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 
I. BACKGROUND 
This action arises, in short, over allegations of corporate espionage and trade secret 
misappropriation. Doc. No. 51 (“SAC”) ¶ 2. Plaintiff “is an FDA-registered tissue 
processing laboratory that specializes in scientific research . . . .” Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff 
alleges that, by way of one of Plaintiff’s then-employees, Defendants Jayashankar, 
Contreras, and Hubers “misappropriate[ed] and use[d] . . . [Plaintiff’s] trade secrets and 
other confidential information to create Exocel Bio, a competing business[,] to 
manufacture and sell the same kind of product as [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶ 2. 
Plaintiff filed its initial complaint on December 28, 2021, an amended complaint 
on May 11, 2022, and the operative second amended complaint on November 10, 2022. 
See Doc. Nos. 1, 31, 51. Plaintiff brings two causes of action under the federal Trade 
Secrets Act and one count of unjust enrichment under Florida law. SAC ¶¶ 14–68. The 
parties have litigated this case since, developing an extensive record. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 
Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often 
provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” 
Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 
Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of 
access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield 
Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 
1178). For filings more than tangentially relevant to the case’s merits, that presumption 
can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling reason,” that “outweigh[s] the 
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95; 
Settrini v. City of San Diego, No. 320CV02273RBMBGS, 2022 WL 6785755 *1 (S.D. 
Cal. Oct. 11, 2022). “When the underlying motion does not surpass . . . tangential 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 397 Filed 05/02/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 4
 
 -3- 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 
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 
relevance . . . [a] ‘good cause’ standard applies.” Settrini, 2022 WL 6785755 at *1. 
III. DISCUSSION 
Defendants move to seal their forthcoming Daubert motion and exhibits 
concerning Plaintiff’s expert, Gary R. Trugman, CPA/ABV, FASA, MVS (“Trugman”). 
Doc. No. 394 at 2. That motion, Defendants claim, 
 
describes and/or attaches information and documents produced in this 
litigation that Kimera has designated “CONFIDENTIAL” and 
“CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY” pursuant to the Protective 
Order [. . . which mandates that] a party seeking to file material designated 
confidential information “must seek permission of the Court to file the 
material under seal.” 
 
Id. 
 Defendants do not address whether their Daubert motion is subject to the 
“compelling reason” or “good cause” standard. However, as a Daubert motion seeks to 
exclude an expert witness’s testimony at trial, such a motion would generally relate more 
than tangentially to the case’s merits. See generally Daubert, 509 U.S. 579. Previewing 
the proposed sealed document, the Court determines for the purposes of this motion that 
this is the case here. See Doc. No. 395. 
Regardless, a blanket discovery protective order is not itself sufficient to show 
good cause, let alone compelling reasons, for sealing particular documents. See Foltz v. 
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); San Jose 
Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999); 
Sihler v. Fulfillment Lab., Inc., No. 20cv1528-LL-MSB, 2023 WL 4339720, at *1 (S.D. 
Cal. Mar. 13, 2023) (“The fact that the exhibits are subject to a protective order is not a 
compelling reason.”). Defendants provide no explanation as to what substantive material 
in the motion and exhibits warrants sealing, or why— beyond the fact that counsel marked 
it “confidential” pursuant to the protective order. Doc. No. 394 at 2. Without such 
explanation and argument, the Court cannot find that compelling reason or good cause 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 397 Filed 05/02/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 4
 
 -4- 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL 
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 
exists to seal any material, let alone an entire motion. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to file under seal 
without prejudice to refiling. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to strike 
the proposed sealed filing, Doc. No. 395. Finally, the Court EXTENDS, sua sponte, the 
deadline for the parties to file or refile dispositive motions, including Daubert motions, to 
on or before May 9, 2025. All other dates and deadlines remain as scheduled. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: May 2, 2025 _____________________________ 
 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 
United States District Judge 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 397 Filed 05/02/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight