Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

– 1 – 15cv595 

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 

OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, 

LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

Case No. 15-cv-595-BAS(MDD) 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: 

PARTIES’ MOTIONS TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

 v. 

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 

Presently before the Court are a number of motions by the parties to file 

documents under seal. (See ECF No. 190, 193, 208, 216, 221, 223, 231, 234, 236, 

242, 247, 250, 276, 280, 303, 312.) The motions were filed with many of the 

substantive briefs filed by the parties, including, but not limited to, briefs related to 

Plaintiff Obesity Research Institute, LLC’s (“ORI”) motion to exclude expert 

testimony, Defendant Fiber Research International, LLC’s (“FRI”) motion for 

summary judgment, and Defendant Shimizu Chemical Corporation’s (“Shimizu”) 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 11
 – 2 – 15cv595 

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 

motion to dismiss. To date, none of the motions are opposed. 

Due to the volume of the parties’ requests, the Court will refer to each motion 

by its Electronic Case Filing number (“ECF No.”) on the docket for the purposes of 

this order. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial 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 & Cty. 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 federal 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 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, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 

underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good 

cause” standard applies. Id. 

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 11
 – 3 – 15cv595 

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 

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). However, 

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal 

documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon 

consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 

435 U.S. at 599. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), generally, provides the “good cause” 

standard for the purposes of sealing documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

The test applied is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from 

being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need 

for confidentiality.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 

(9th Cir. 2002)). Under Rule 26(c), only “a particularized showing of ‘good cause’ . 

. . is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents[.]” In re 

Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a 

“particularized showing” of good cause). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 

by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” 

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, 

a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show “good cause” for sealing 

particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; 

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 

(9th Cir. 1999). 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 11
 – 4 – 15cv595 

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 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. ECF No. 190 

In ECF No. 190, FRI seeks leave to file under seal portions of its memorandum 

in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Laura Lerner’s report and testimony in 

addition to portions of Exhibit 3 to the Flynn Declaration. The crux of FRI’s 

argument is as follows: 

Fiber Research believes there are probably sufficiently 

“compelling reasons” to redact some information, namely 

that identifying the precise viscosity of Lipozene, as in 

some of Dr. Lerner’s headers, and possibly information 

about its supplier, Nutralliance, which appears on page 6 

of Dr. Lerner’s Report[.] [¶] In addition, Fiber Research 

has continued to redact Obesity Research’s testing 

(attached as exhibits to Dr. Lerner’s Report), and 

information derived from the testing in Dr. Lerner’s 

Report. But Fiber Research believes there is not a 

sufficiently “compelling reason” to redact this 

information[.] 

(FRI’s ECF No. 190 at 3:6-17.) 

 Having reviewed FRI’s explanation, the Court finds that FRI fails to carry its 

burden to demonstrate that sealing the requested information is appropriate under the 

compelling-reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court 

DENIES FRI’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 190.)

B. ECF No. 193 

In ECF No. 193, FRI seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit 11, which is a onepage Certificate of Analysis for Shimizu’s Propol KW product, to the Persinger 

Declaration in support of FRI’s motion to exclude ORI’s non-retained expert 

witnesses. FRI argues that the information contained in Exhibit 11 is “highly 

confidential proprietary information about the characteristics of glucomannan that 

could allow a competitor to attempt to reverse engineer Shimizu’s glucomannan,” 

and that the Court has already determined that the certificate is “extremely sensitive” 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 11
 – 5 – 15cv595 

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 

in a protective order. No further explanation is provided by FRI regarding how the 

information contained in the certificate could be used in the manner purported. 

Having reviewed FRI’s incomplete explanation, the Court finds that FRI fails 

to carry its burden to demonstrate that sealing the requested information is 

appropriate under the compelling-reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Therefore, the Court DENIES FRI’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 

193.) 

C. ECF No. 208 

In ECF No. 208, Shimizu seeks leave to file under seal certain information 

contained in Exhibit 1, which is the distribution and assignment agreement between 

FRI and Shimizu, to the Shimizu Declaration, which Shimizu argues could be used 

to gain a competitive advantage. Shimizu contends, for example, that the exhibit 

contains pricing and shipping information for Propol products that could be 

improperly used. 

Having reviewed Shimizu’s request, the Court finds that Shimizu fails to carry 

its burden to demonstrate that sealing the terms of the distribution and assignment 

agreement is appropriate under the compelling-reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179. However, the Court finds that sealing the pricing and shipping 

information contained on the page identified as “FRO 170” is appropriate. Therefore, 

the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Shimizu’s motion to file 

documents under seal. (ECF No. 208.) 

D. ECF No. 216 

In ECF No. 216, ORI seeks leave to file under seal portions of its memorandum 

in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Fahey in addition to Exhibits 3-6 and 9-11 to 

the Flaherty Declaration. Specifically, ORI argues that the “Confidential” or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” designations, which are all made pursuant to the 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 11
 – 6 – 15cv595 

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 

protective order, justifies sealing the aforementioned documents. Though ORI 

invokes the good-cause standard, because admissibility of expert testimony is “more 

than tangentially related to the merits of the case,” the appropriate standard applied 

to the circumstances is the compelling-reasons standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 

F.3d at 1102. 

Having applied the wrong standard, ORI’s request is properly denied. See Ctr. 

for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. It is also properly denied because ORI fails to make 

a particularized showing demonstrating that sealing the requested documents is 

appropriate. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. However, even if the Court applied 

the good-cause standard, a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show 

“good cause” for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman 

Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 

187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Court DENIES ORI’s motion 

to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 216.) 

E. ECF No. 221 

In ECF No. 221, ORI seeks leave to seal portions of its opposition to FRI’s 

motion to exclude Dr. Lerner’s report and testimony because “[t]he redacted portion 

of the publicly filed Opposition contains information regarding the nature of ORI’s 

product, Lipozene, and the sources of the materials used in Lipozene which has been 

deemed “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by ORI 

given the extremely sensitive nature of the information.” ORI’s conclusory assertion 

that the aforementioned information is “extremely sensitive” is wholly inadequate. 

Having reviewed ORI’s request, the Court finds that ORI fails to carry its 

burden to demonstrate that sealing the requested information is appropriate under the 

compelling-reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court 

DENIES ORI’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 221.) 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 11
 – 7 – 15cv595 

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 

F. ECF No. 223 

In ECF No. 223, ORI seeks leave to seal portions of its opposition to FRI’s 

motion to exclude ORI’s non-retained witnesses in addition to portions of Exhibits 

4, 6, and 7 to the Flaherty Declaration. To justify its request, ORI presents the same 

conclusory arguments asserted in support of its request to file documents under seal 

in ECF No. 221, which the Court denied above. The Court DENIES this request 

(ECF No. 223) for the same reasons it denied ECF No. 221. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179. 

G. ECF No. 231 

In ECF No. 231, FRI seeks leave to file portions of its reply in support of its 

motion to exclude Dr. Lerner’s report and testimony in addition to Exhibits 2 and 3 

to the Flynn Declaration. FRI indicates that it does not believe these materials are 

appropriate for sealing, but has nonetheless made the request to do so pursuant to the 

protective order. However, the precise request is for a show-cause order for ORI to 

demonstrate that sealing the aforementioned documents is appropriate. ORI has not 

responded FRI’s request. Ultimately, neither standard for sealing documents has been 

met by either party, and as a result, the Court DENIES FRI’s motion to file 

documents under seal. (ECF No. 231.) 

H. ECF No. 234 

In ECF No. 234, FRI seeks leave to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Persinger 

Declaration, submitted in support of its motion to exclude non-retained expert 

witnesses. This request is made under the same circumstances as ECF No. 231, and 

ORI has not responded to FRI’s request. Accordingly, the Court DENIES FRI’s 

request to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 234.) 

// 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 11
 – 8 – 15cv595 

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. ECF No. 236 

In ECF No. 236, ORI seeks leave to seal portions of its opposition to Shimizu’s 

motion to dismiss, and Exhibit 3 through 5 to the Index of Exhibits. ORI argues that 

sealing is appropriate pursuant to the protective order. To justify its position, ORI 

only provides conclusory assertion that aforementioned documents contain “sensitive 

business information” without any explanation regarding how or why that 

information is sensitive in nature. 

Having reviewed ORI’s request, the Court finds that ORI fails to carry its 

burden to demonstrate that sealing the requested information is appropriate under the 

compelling-reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court 

DENIES ORI’s motion to file documents under seal. (ECF No. 236.) ORI is 

reminded that a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to show “good cause” 

for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 

F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 

1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

J. ECF No. 242 

In ECF No. 242, FRI seeks leave to seal Exhibits 2 and 4 to the Fitzgerald 

Declaration, submitted in support of its opposition to ORI’s motion to exclude Dr. 

Fahey. Though FRI appears to base its request on the protective order, FRI explains 

that the exhibits contain Shimizu’s “proprietary testing methodologies, testing 

results, certificates of analysis containing testing results for Shimizu’s Propol, and 

Propol product specifications,” adding that “the disclosure of which to the general 

public could irreparably damage Shimizu as the owner of those underlying 

proprietary testing methodologies, test results, and trade secrets, and thereby its 

assignee, licensee, and distributor, Fiber Research.” FRI’s explanation appears to be 

consistent with the Court’s assessment of the relevant exhibits. 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 11
 – 9 – 15cv595 

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 

Having reviewed FRI’s request, and the relevant documents, the Court finds 

that FRI provides compelling reasons to seal the aforementioned documents. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court GRANTS FRI’s motion to file 

documents under seal. (ECF No. 242.) 

K. ECF No. 247 

In ECF No. 247, ORI seeks leave to seal Exhibits 5 and 8 of the Flaherty 

Declaration in connection with its motion for reconsideration of an April 8, 2016 

order striking portions of the supplemental disclosures. To justify its request, ORI 

presents similar arguments asserted in support of its request to file documents under 

seal in ECF Nos. 216 and 221, which the Court denied above. The Court DENIES

this request (ECF No. 247) for the same reasons it denied ECF Nos. 216 and 223. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 

476. 

L. ECF No. 250 

The Court DENIES this request for the same reasons it denied ECF No. 216. 

(ECF No. 250.) ORI is reminded that a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient 

to show “good cause,” let alone compelling reasons, for sealing particular documents. 

See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury 

News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

M. ECF No. 276 

The Court DENIES this request for the same reasons it denied ECF No. 216. 

(ECF No. 276.) ORI is reminded that a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient 

to show “good cause,” let alone compelling reasons, for sealing particular documents. 

See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury 

News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 11
 – 10 – 15cv595 

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 

N. ECF No. 280 

In ECF No. 280, ORI seeks leave to seal portions of its memorandum in 

support of its objection to the magistrate judge’s October 23, 2015 order regarding 

whether portions of the Beaton supplemental report should be stricken. Though ORI 

appears to base its request on the protective order, ORI explains that the 

memorandum contains sensitive financial information, including revenues and costs 

information. ORI’s explanation appears to be consistent with the Court’s assessment 

of the relevant information. 

Having reviewed ORI’s request, and the relevant information, the Court finds 

that ORI provides good cause to seal the aforementioned documents. See Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court GRANTS ORI’s motion to file documents 

under seal. (ECF No. 280.) 

O. ECF No. 303 

The Court DENIES this request for the same reasons it denied ECF No. 216. 

(ECF No. 303.) ORI is reminded that a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient 

to show “good cause,” let alone compelling reasons, for sealing particular documents. 

See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury 

News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

P. ECF No. 312 

The Court DENIES this request for the same reasons it denied ECF No. 216. 

(ECF No. 312.) ORI is reminded that a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient 

to show “good cause” for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; 

Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 

N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

// 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 11
 – 11 – 15cv595 

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 

Q. ECF No. 318 

The Court DENIES this request for the same reasons it denied ECF No. 216. 

(ECF No. 318.) ORI is reminded that a blanket protective order is not itself sufficient 

to show “good cause” for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; 

Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 

N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS FRI’s motion to file documents 

under seal in ECF No. 242 and ORI’s request to file documents under seal in ECF 

No. 280; GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Shimizu’s request to file 

documents under seal in ECF No. 208; and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 

remaining requests in ECF Nos. 190, 193, 216, 221, 223, 231, 234, 236, 247, 250, 

276, 303, 312, and 318. 

If the parties wish to re-file any denied request, addressing the defects 

identified in this order, it may do so no later than March 27, 2017 after the issuance 

of this order. Otherwise, the parties are instructed to file the unredacted versions of 

the aforementioned documents on the public docket no later than March 27, 2017

after the issuance of this order. When filing the documents on the public docket, the 

parties must strictly adhere to the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this 

district’s Civil Local Rules, this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, and this 

district’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies & Procedures Manual. Noncompliance with this order or any relevant rules may result in sanctions pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 83.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 17, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 324 Filed 03/17/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 11