govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_21-cv-02137-16

-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 DEFENDANTS’ 
MOTIONS TO SEAL REPLIES AND 
OBJECTIONS 
 
[Doc. Nos. 445, 450] 
 
On June 23, 2025, Defendants Exocel Bio Inc., Raj Jayashankar, Alejandro (Alex) 
Contreras, and Deb Hubers (collectively “Defendants”), ex parte, filed two motions to 
seal, one seeking to seal portions of their objections to Plaintiff’s counter-statement of 
facts and portions of their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, and the 
other seeking to seal portions of their reply in support of their motion to exclude 
Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Henry Furneaux. Doc. Nos. 445, 450. Each motion indicates that 
Plaintiff does not oppose it, and Defendants filed redacted versions of each document on 
the public docket. Doc. No. 445 at 4; Doc. No. 450 at 4; see Doc. Nos. 448–49, 452. 
Having ruled on several such motions, the Court 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 470 Filed 06/26/25 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 470 Filed 06/26/25 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). 
Starting with their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment, the 
portions Defendants seek to seal discuss Plaintiff’s purportedly confidential production 
process. Compare Doc. No. 446 at 3–4, 8–9 with Doc. No. 448 at 3–4, 8–9. The public 
version of this filing contains only minimal redactions necessary to prevent disclosure of 
Plaintiff’s purportedly confidential processes. See Doc. No. 448. Thus, sealing is proper. 
Turning next to Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s counter-statement of facts, the 
same is true: the redacted portions contain discussion of Plaintiff’s purportedly 
confidential processes, and their publicly filed version is redacted only insofar as is 
necessary to protect this information. Compare Doc. No. 449 at 5–6 with Doc. No. 447 
at 5–6; see generally Doc. No. 449. Sealing the material is therefore appropriate. 
Finally, turning to Defendants’ reply in support of their motion to exclude Dr. 
Furneax, the portions subject to the motion likewise discuss Plaintiff’s confidential 
processes, and are exceedingly minimal. Compare Doc. No. 452 at 9 with Doc. No. 451 
at 9. The public version likewise contains minimal redactions. See generally Doc. No. 
452. Accordingly, sealing this material is proper. 
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. 
446, 447, and 451 under seal. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 26, 2025 _____________________________ 
 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 
United States District Judge 
 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 470 Filed 06/26/25 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight