govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_21-cv-02137-17

1 
3:21-cv-02137-RBM-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 JAYSHANKAR, et al., 
Defendants. 

 
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 
SEAL 
 
[Docs. 483, 489, 494] 
 
 
Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendants Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro Contreras, 
Deb Hubers, and Raj Jayash ankar’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion to Seal 
Forthcoming Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Limited Reconsideration 
of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment 
(“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 483); (2) Plaintiff Kimera Labs Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) 
Motion to Seal its Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration 
(“Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal”) (Doc. 489); and (3) Defendants’ Motion to Seal Forthcoming 
Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Limited Reconsideration of Order Granting in 
Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal 
Reply”) (Doc. 494). All three Motions to Seal are unopposed. ( See Doc. 483 at 2; Doc. 
489 at 2; Doc. 494 at 2.) 
For the reasons set forth below, the Partie s’ Motions to Seal (Docs. 483, 489, 494) 
are GRANTED. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 507 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 4
 
2 
3:21-cv-02137-RBM-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 
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 
records and documents, including judi cial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 
Commc’ns, Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 
‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 
of access is ‘based on the need for fe deral courts, although independent—indeed, 
particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 
public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 
Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 
1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 
presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this 
burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 
than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 
When the underlying motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case[,]” 
the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98, 1102. If the underlying motion 
does not surpass the tangentially related threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 
II. DISCUSSION 
Defendants filed two Motions to Seal —one for their Motion for Limited 
Reconsideration of Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary 
Judgment (“Motion for Reconsideration”), and the other for their Reply in support of their 
Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 483, 494.) Plaintiff seek s to seal its “opposition to 
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration with partial redactions.” (Doc. 489 at 2.) 
In all three Motions to Seal, the Parties move the Court to s eal limited portions of 
their briefs that pertain to Plaintiff’s alle ged trade secret, which Plaintiff designated as 
confidential business information. ( See Doc. 483 at 4; Doc. 489 at 2; Doc. 494 at 4–5.) 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 507 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 4
 
3 
3:21-cv-02137-RBM-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
Because the Parties’ proposed redactions concern the same information, the Court 
considers all three Motions to Seal concurrently. 
Judge Michael M. Anello previously ruled on several similar motions to seal related 
to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Doc. 422 at 5; Doc. 454 at 3–5; Doc. 
466 at 2–3; Doc. 470 at 2–3.) In doing so, J udge Anello applied the “compelling reason” 
standard and determined that “information concerning Plaintiff’s purportedly confidential 
production processes—which it asserts are trade secrets— or information concerning 
profits and sales. . . . is of the t ype properly sealed.” (Doc. 466 at 2–3; see Doc. 454 at 5 
(finding materials in opposition to “Defendants’ motion for summary judgment . . . discuss, 
in detail and depth, the purportedly confidential production processes at the case’s heart.”).) 
Here, the underlying motion seeks reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment 
ruling and is therefore “more than tangentia lly related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for 
Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. The Parties seek to s eal the same information redacted in 
their summary judgment briefing which “necessarily describes and/or attaches information 
and documents produced by [Plaintiff] in this litigation that [Plaintiff] maintains constitutes 
trade secret information or, if made public ly available, would disclose aspects of 
information that [Plaintiff] alleges as trad e secret information.” (Doc. 483 at 2; see Doc. 
489 at 2; Doc. 494 at 4–5.) Plaintiff, as the designating party, confirmed that “the 
information identified . . . must be filed under seal.” (Doc. 483 at 2; Doc. 494 at 2.) The 
Parties have also publicly filed redacted versions of their reconsideration briefing and their 
proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to preserve the confidential nature of Plaintiff’s 
alleged trade secret processes. (See Docs. 485, 491, 496.) 
The Court therefore adopts the reasoning in Judge Anello’s prior orders and applies 
it here. (See Doc. 422 at 5; Doc. 454 at 3–5; Doc. 466 at 2–3; Doc. 470 at 2–3.) For those 
same reasons, the Court finds: (1) the “compe lling reason” standard applies to the instant 
Motions to Seal; and (2) the potential disclosure of trade secrets is a “compelling reason[ ] 
to . . . seal[ ] court records.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S.at 
598). Sealing these materials is therefore proper. 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 507 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 4
 
4 
3:21-cv-02137-RBM-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
III. CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing reasons, and for good cause, the Parties’ Motions to Seal 
(Docs. 483, 489, and 494) are GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file 
Docs. 484, 490, and 495, and their respective attachments under seal. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
DATE: June 16, 2026 
 ____________________________________ 
 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 3:21-cv-02137-RBM-DDL Document 507 Filed 06/16/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight