govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_21-cv-02137-15

-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 REPLY BRIEFS 
 
[Doc. Nos. 457, 462] 
 
On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”), ex parte, filed two 
motions to seal portions of its replies in support of its Daubert motions concerning 
Defendants Raj Jayashankar’s, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro (Alex) Contreras, and Deb 
Hubers’ (collectively, “Defendants”) expert witnesses, Drs. Scott D. Olson and Aejaz 
Sayeed. Doc. Nos. 457, 462. Each motion indicates that Defendants do not oppose it, 
and a redacted version of each brief has been filed on the public docket. Doc. No. 457 at 
2; Doc. No. 462 at 2; see Doc. Nos. 456, 460. As the Court has now ruled on several 
such motions, by both parties, at this stage in proceedings, it will forgo a recitation of the 
relevant background. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both motions to 
seal. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 466 Filed 06/25/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 3
 
 -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. 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. 
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). 
II.
 DISCUSSION 
For the same reasons discussed in its prior orders sealing documents related to the 
pending Daubert and summary judgment motions, the Court finds that the “compelling 
reason” standard applies to the motions to seal. See Doc. No. 454 at 3; 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, 435 U.S. at 598). “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, 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 466 Filed 06/25/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 3
 
 -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 
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). 
Upon review of the documents subject to the motion, the Court finds the portions 
that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal contain information concerning its purportedly 
confidential production processes— which it asserts are trade secrets— or information 
concerning profits and sales. Compare Doc. No. 459 at 4 n.4, 8 with Doc. No. 456 at 4 
n.4, 8; Compare Doc. No. 460 at 4, 6 with Doc. No. 463 at 4, 6. This information, as 
discussed above, is of the type properly sealed. Plaintiff also filed publicly available 
versions of each document it seeks to seal, redacting in general only as much information 
as is relevant to protect the confidential information within. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, the Court determines that sealing is appropriate and GRANTS 
the motions to file under seal. It further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. Nos. 
459 and 463 under seal. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 25, 2025 _____________________________ 
 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 466 Filed 06/25/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight