Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-21/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) 

ORDER RE: OBESITY 

RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC’S 

MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

[ECF No. 330] 

 v. 

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Obesity Research Institute, LLC’s 

(“ORI”) renewed motion to file certain documents under seal. ORI indicates that its 

counsel met and conferred with Defendant Fiber Research International, LLC’s 

(“FRI”) counsel, and agreed that “each would be responsible for re-filing motions to 

seal documents or materials that such party desires redacted or filed under seal, 

regardless of which party originally filed the documents as redacted or under 

seal[.]” (ORI’s Mot. 1:10-20.) 

The Court will refer to each motion by its Electronic Case Filing number 

(“ECF No.”) on the docket for the purposes of this order as it previously did in the 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
 – 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 

March 17, 2017 Order, a format which ORI has also adopted in their renewed motion. 

Both parties also did not re-submit the documents they seek to file under seal in both 

redacted and unredacted form, a requirement for this district’s sealing procedure in 

civil cases. This failure frequently made it difficult for the Court to determine 

precisely what the parties sought to be sealed, particularly when the parties sought to 

adjust redactions to existing documents. 

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. 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
 – 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 

“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 

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 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
 – 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 its renewed motion with respect to ECF No. 190, ORI requests leave to file 

under seal portions of FRI’s motion to exclude Dr. Laura Lerner’s Report and 

Testimony in addition to Exhibit 3 to the Flynn Declaration, which includes the Dr. 

Lerner’s Expert Report and numerous supporting exhibits. As ORI describes, the 

portions targeted for redaction and sealing generally appear to present or discuss 

proprietary testing methods or other proprietary information warranting sealing. 

Because ORI provides compelling reasons to seal portions of FRI’s motion in 

addition to portions of Dr. Lerner’s Expert Report and certain supporting exhibits, 

the Court GRANTS ORI’s motion for leave to file these documents under seal. (ECF 

No. 190.) If it is not already available on the public docket, ORI must also file the 

motion and/or expert report with the appropriate redactions on the public docket. 

B. ECF No. 216 

In its renewed motion with respect to ECF No. 216, ORI narrows its request 

to file portions of its memorandum in support of its motion to exclude Dr. Fahey and 

Exhibit 5 to the Flaherty Declaration. ORI appears to properly target portions of the 

memorandum that discusses proprietary information or material appropriate for 

sealing, but fails to apply the same level of precision with respect to Exhibit 5, which 

is a deposition transcript of James R. Ayres. For example, it is unclear how questions 

about the witness’ education is appropriate for sealing. Sealing the entire deposition 

transcript is too broad based on the explanation ORI provides. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART ORI’s 

motion for leave to file these documents under seal. (ECF No. 216.) Specifically, the 

Court GRANTS the request as to ORI’s memorandum and DENIES as to Exhibit 5. 

Furthermore, the Court notes that ORI originally sought to also seal Exhibits 3, 4, 6, 

9, 10, and 11 to the Flaherty Declaration. ORI appears to no longer seek to seal these 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
 – 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 

exhibits. Thus, ORI must file these exhibits on the public docket. 

C. ECF No. 221 

For the same reasons the Court granted ORI leave to file under seal portions 

of the brief related to ECF No. 216, the Court also GRANTS ORI leave to file 

portions of its opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude the report and testimony of Dr. 

Laura Lerner. (ECF No. 221.) If it is not already available on the public docket, ORI 

must also file its opposition brief with the appropriate redactions on the public docket. 

D. ECF No. 223 

In its renewed motion with respect to ECF No. 223, ORI seeks leave to file 

under seal portions of its opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude non-retained experts 

in addition to Exhibits 6 and 7, which are both deposition transcripts. ORI also 

concedes that Exhibit 4, which it previously sought to file under seal, would not 

satisfy the compelling-reasons standard. 

For the same reasons the Court granted ORI leave to file under seal portions 

of the brief related to ECF No. 216, the Court also GRANTS ORI leave to file under 

seal portions of its opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude non-retained experts. (ECF 

No. 221.) The Court is giving ORI some latitude regarding the memorandum as all 

of the content identified for sealing may not meet the compelling-reasons standard. 

For example, general statements regarding Mr. Ayers’ knowledge of the “specific 

formulation” and communications with manufacturers about “current specifications” 

lack the specificity warranting sealing. (ORI’s Mot. 13:3-7, ECF No. 224.) 

Similarly, most of the content targeted for sealing in Exhibits 6 and 7 satisfies 

the compelling-reasons standard, though at certain points the redactions were overinclusive. Taking an example from the Ayres Deposition, redacting the attorney’s 

statement that an individual has “left the room” and the request for the reporter to 

“read the question back” does not meet the compelling-reasons standard warranting 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
 – 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 

sealing. (Ayres Dep. 47:3-5.) The Court will nonetheless give ORI some latitude here 

and GRANT its request to seal portions of Exhibits 6 and 7. 

ORI is reminded that because Exhibit 4 is not subject to a sealing order, it must 

file the entire exhibit on the public docket. It must also file the exhibits with revised 

redactions on the public docket. 

E. ECF No. 231 

ORI appears to properly target portions of the FRI’s reply in support of its 

motion to exclude Dr. Lerner’s report and testimony that discusses material 

appropriate for sealing. Furthermore, Exhibits 2 and 3 appear to contain information 

about proprietary testing methods. Therefore, the Court GRANTS ORI’s request for 

leave to file under seal portions of FRI’s reply and Exhibits 2 and 3. (ECF No. 231.)

F. ECF No. 234 

For the same reasons the Court granted ORI leave to file under Exhibits 2 and 

3 related to ECF No. 231, the Court also GRANTS ORI leave to file under seal 

Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Persinger Declaration. (ECF No. 233.) 

G. ECF No. 247 

ORI only renews its request for leave to file portions of Exhibit 5 under seal. 

It concedes Exhibit 8 “likely would not satisfy the compelling reasons standard[.]” 

For the same reasons the Court granted ORI leave to file exhibits under seal related 

to ECF No. 234, the Court also GRANTS ORI leave to file portions of Exhibit 5 

under seal. (ECF No. 247.) ORI is reminded that because Exhibit 8 is not subject to 

a sealing order, it must file the entire exhibit on the public docket. Furthermore, if it 

is not already available on the public docket, ORI must also file Exhibit 5 with the 

appropriate redactions on the public docket. 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
 – 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 

H. ECF No. 250 

In its renewed motion, ORI narrows its request to file portions of its reply in 

support of its motion to exclude Dr. Fahey. With its revisions, ORI appears to 

properly target portions of its reply that discusses material appropriate for sealing. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS ORI leave to file portions of its reply under seal. 

(ECF No. 250.) ORI is reminded that it must file its reply with the revised redactions 

on the public docket. 

I. ECF No. 276 

In its renewed motion to file portions of its pretrial disclosures under seal, ORI 

contends that the good-cause standard applies. Even if the lower good-cause standard 

is the one properly applied, it is unclear how general descriptions of particular 

documents or exhibits contained in an index satisfies that standard. The first entry in 

that index ORI seeks leave to file under seal describes a graph regarding viscosity. 

Not the graph itself or any specific information in the graph, but merely that a graph 

exists. In another example, a reference is made to a distribution and claim-assignment 

agreement. Again, there are no specifics regarding the contents of that agreement, 

but merely that one exists. This is a common occurrence in the portions of the index 

in the pretrial disclosures that ORI seeks to file under seal. Such general descriptions 

fail to even meet the good-cause standard. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES ORI’s request for leave to file portions of its 

pretrial disclosures under seal. (ECF No. 276.) 

J. ECF Nos. 236, 303, 312, & 318 

ORI states that it “does not contend that the material filed under seal previously 

brought” in ECF Nos. 236, 303, 312, and 318 “merit sealing.” If the documents 

identified in these requests are not subject to a sealing order, the appropriate party 

must file the documents at issue in ECF Nos. 236, 303, 312, and 318 on the public 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
 – 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 

docket. 

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 

PART ORI’s motion for leave to file documents under seal in ECF No. 216, and 

GRANTS the motion in its entirety for ECF Nos. 190, 221, 223, 231, 234, 247, and 

250. The Court also DENIES the motion it its entirety for ECF No. 276. 

Where portions of briefs, exhibits, or other documents have been sealed, and 

if not already available on the public docket, ORI must also file these documents with 

the appropriate redactions on the public docket. More broadly, any documents where 

leave has not been granted to file under seal, such as documents where ORI has 

conceded sealing is not warranted, must also be filed on the public docket. 

For the purposes of this order, the Court acknowledges that ORI does not seek 

leave to file certain documents under seal insofar as ECF Nos. 236, 303, 312, and 

318. As previously stated, if the documents at issue in ECF Nos. 236, 303, 312, and 

318 are not subject to a sealing order, the appropriate party must file the documents 

at issue on the public docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 25, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 367 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8