Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04312/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-04312-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TEVRA BRANDS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-04312-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

AND PLAINTIFF'S SUR-REPLY

[ECF 42, 65]

The parties have filed several administrative motions to seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

79-5 in this case. This order addresses two of these motions: (1) Defendant Bayer HealthCare LLC’s 

Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Its Motion to 

Dismiss, ECF 42, and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of Its Sur-Reply in 

Opposition to Bayer HealthCare LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF 65. 

“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 right exists to “ensur[e] the public’s understanding of the judicial process and 

of significant public events,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted), as 

“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). Accordingly, in order to 

justify sealing court records, a litigant must show “compelling reasons” that “outweigh the general 

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Here, however, there is no public interest in viewing the documents the parties seek to seal. 

Both sets of documents were filed in connection with Bayer HealthCare LLC’s Motion to Dismiss

Case 5:19-cv-04312-BLF Document 93 Filed 03/16/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

the Complaint, which the Court subsequently terminated as moot. ECF 92. Because there will be

no judicial decision on that motion, the public has no need to access the supporting documents. See 

Karl v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., No. C 18-04176 WHA, 2019 WL 5677543, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 

Oct. 31, 2019). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the administrative motions to seal; the copies of 

the documents filed at ECF 42 and 65 will remain under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-04312-BLF Document 93 Filed 03/16/20 Page 2 of 2