govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_21-cv-02137-14

-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 GRANTING MOTIONS TO 
SEAL 
 
[Doc. Nos. 431, 434, 439, 442] 
 
On June 16, 2025, Defendants Raj Jayashankar, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro (Alex) 
Contreras, and Deb Hubers (collectively, “Defendants”), ex parte, filed two motions to 
seal their respective responses in opposition to Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) 
Daubert motions concerning expert witnesses Dr. Aejaz Sayeed and Dr. Scott D. Olson. 
Doc. Nos. 431, 434. That same date, Plaintiff, ex parte, filed two motions to seal, one as 
to its response opposition to Defendants’ Daubert motion concerning expert witness Dr. 
Henry M. Furneaux, and the other as to its response in opposition to Defendants’ motion 
for summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 439, 442. For the following reasons, the Court 
GRANTS the motions to seal. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 454 Filed 06/23/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 5
 
 -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 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 a then-employee familiar with its confidential processes, 
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. A 
hearing on the parties’ respective Daubert motions and Defendants’ motion for summary 
judgment is currently set for June 30, 2025. 
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. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 454 Filed 06/23/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 5
 
 -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 
For filings that do not meet this “tangential relevance” threshold, the Court applies a 
“good cause” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 
1097–1102 (9th Cir. 2016). 
III. DISCUSSION 
As a preliminary matter, and as it has in prior orders sealing documents related to 
the pending Daubert and summary judgment motions, the Court finds that the 
“compelling reason” standard discussed above applies to the motions to seal. See Doc. 
No. 422 at 3; Doc. No. 397 at 4. Generally, “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh 
the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court 
files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 
trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 
435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “Courts have held that ‘confidential business information’ in 
the form of ‘license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing 
negotiations, and business strategies’ also satisfies the compelling reasons standard.” Nia 
v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 
12, 2024). This includes confidential information about business profits, expenditures, 
and losses. See Pulse Elecs., Inc. v. U.D. Elec. Corp., 530 F. Supp. 3d 988, 1030–31 
(S.D. Cal. 2021), aff’d, No. 2021-1856, 2022 WL 1436146 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022). 
A. Defendants’ Motions 
 Defendants seek to seal their respective responses in opposition to Plaintiff’s 
Daubert motions concerning expert witnesses Drs. Sayeed and Olson. Doc. Nos. 431, 
434. Defendants represent that Plaintiff’s counsel does not object to either motion. Doc. 
No. 431 at 4; Doc. No. 434 at 4.1 
 
1 In their motions to seal, Defendants repeat their argument that Plaintiff “has failed to identify a legally 
protectable trade secret . . .” and that thus sealing is unnecessary. Doc. No. 431 at 4; Doc. No. 434 at 4. 
The Court, as it has before, finds that “[t]o rule on this basis [on a motion to seal] would be, in effect, to 
rule on summary judgment, and to wait until summary judgment to rule on the motion to seal would be 
inefficient and ultimately futile.” Doc. No. 422 at 5. Thus, the Court declines to rule on that basis now. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 454 Filed 06/23/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 5
 
 -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 
The Court begins with Defendants’ response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert 
motion concerning Dr. Sayeed. Doc. Nos. 432, 433. Upon review, the portions 
Defendants seek to seal contain detailed discussion and description of Plaintiff’s 
confidential processes and methods. Compare Doc. No. 432 at 19 with Doc. No. 433 at 
19. This content is minimal compared to the filing as a whole, and Defendants thus 
provide a public version redacting only the minimum confidential information. See 
generally Doc. No. 433. The exhibits sealed alongside also contain detailed discussion as 
to Plaintiff’s purportedly confidential processes in the form of discovery responses and 
excerpted deposition portions, in an amount rendering mere redaction inefficient and 
impracticable. Doc. No. 432-2–432–3. Sealing the material is therefore proper. 
The Court next examines Defendants’ response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert 
motion concerning Dr. Olson. Doc. Nos. 435, 436. The sealed portions contain 
information involving the details of Plaintiff’s manufacturing processes. Compare Doc. 
No. 435 at 8 with Doc. No. 436 at 8. The exhibits sealed alongside similarly contain 
detailed discussion as to Plaintiff’s confidential processes and appear to be identical to 
those they seek to seal in their motion concerning Dr. Sayeed, discussed above. Compare 
Doc. No. 432-2–432–3 with Doc. No. 435-2–435–3. As with that response in opposition, 
Defendants here submit a publicly filed version, redacting only the amount of content 
necessary to preserve these processes’ confidential nature. See generally Doc. No. 436. 
This material is appropriate for sealing. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ 
motions to seal. 
B. Plaintiff’s Motions 
 Turning to Plaintiff’s motions, it seeks to seal its responses in opposition to 
Defendants’ Daubert motion concerning Dr. Furneaux and Defendants’ motion for 
summary judgment. Doc. Nos. 439, 442. Plaintiff represents that Defendants do not 
object to its motions to seal. Doc. No. 439 at 2; Doc. No. 442 at 2. 
 As to Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendants’ Daubert motion, the 
materials Plaintiff seeks to seal generally contain detailed information about its 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 454 Filed 06/23/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 5
 
 -5- 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 
confidential business processes. Compare Doc. No. 438 at 5 with Doc. No. 440 at 5; 
compare Doc. No. 438 at 13–14 with Doc. No. 440 at 13–14 ; but see Doc. No. 438 at 10; 
Doc. No. 440 at 10. Plaintiff likewise filed a public version of its opposition, redacting 
minimal amounts of information. Doc. No. 438. Sealing is therefore appropriate. 
 Finally, the material Plaintiff seeks to seal within its response in opposition to 
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment falls within similar lines. These portions 
discuss, in detail and depth, the purportedly confidential production processes at the 
case’s heart. Compare Doc. No. 441 at 9–14 with Doc. No. 443 at 9–14. The same is 
true of most exhibits it seeks to seal in support of that response. Compare Doc. No. 441-
1 with Doc. No. 443-1; Compare Doc. No. 441-10 at 14 with Doc. No. 443-10 at 14; see 
Doc. Nos. 443-2, 443-15, 443-18, 443-21–443-22. Other sealed exhibits discuss 
confidential business information. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 443-9,443-16, 443-30. Plaintiff 
also filed a public version of its opposition and, where practicable, public versions of its 
proposed sealed exhibits—each with redactions limited to the specific sensitive 
information.2 See generally Doc. No. 441; see, e.g., Doc. Nos. 441-3, 441-8, 441-26. 
Thus, sealing is proper, and the Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motions to file under seal and 
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. Nos. 432, 435, 440, and 443, and their 
respective attachments, under seal. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 23, 2025 _____________________________ 
 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 
United States District Judge 
 
2 For ease, the parties may file exhibit cover pages noting that it seeks to file exhibits or pages under 
seal, rather than file exhibits with entire pages redacted. See, e.g. Doc. No. 441-1; Doc. No. 441-18. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 454 Filed 06/23/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight