Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-27/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 15cv0595

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-00595-BAS-MDD

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL (ECF Nos. 426, 428);

AND

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL (ECF No. 430)

v.

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM.

Presently before the Court are three motions by the parties to file documents 

under seal. (See ECF Nos. 426, 428, 430.) The motions were filed following this 

Court’s previous Order on the parties’ motions to seal. (ECF No. 420.) Plaintiff 

Obesity Research Institute, LLC’s (“ORI”) filed a renewed request for leave to file 

three documents under seal. (ECF No. 426.) Defendant Fiber Research International, 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 9
– 2 – 15cv0595

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

LLC’s (“FRI”) filed two renewed requests for leave to file various documents under 

seal. (ECF Nos. 428, 430.)

Consistent with its previous orders, 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 9
– 3 – 15cv0595

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

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,” 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 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 9
– 4 – 15cv0595

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. 426

In ECF No. 426, ORI seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit 86, Exhibit 90, and 

an unredacted version of Exhibit 130 to the Declaration of Henny den Uijl, filed in 

along with its consolidated motion for summary judgment and opposition to FRI’s

motion for partial summary judgment. FRI did not file a response to ECF No. 426.

Exhibits 86 and 90 contain propriety business or product information. Exhibit 

86 is an email chain between ORI and its suppliers, and ORI argues that it contains

proprietary information regarding its product sourcing and pricing. (ECF No. 426 at 

4-5.) ORI argues that, if this information became public, it would cause “severe 

business harm and competitive disadvantage.” (Id. at 4.) Exhibit 90 is a “formulation 

and product specification” information sheet that ORI argues contains Lipozene’s 

proprietary composition and product specifications. (Id. at 5.) ORI argues that a 

competitor could use this information to “reverse engineer” Lipozene, causing a 

“significant business disadvantage” to ORI. (Id.) ORI’s explanations appear to be 

consistent with the Court’s assessment of these exhibits.

ORI proposes to seal proprietary information, such as “formulations, sourcing 

information, supply quantities, and marketing strategies,” and financial information 

in Exhibit 130, which is the Expert Report of Neil Beaton and has been partially 

redacted. (ECF No. 426 at 3-4.) ORI argues that failing to seal the proprietary product 

information will cause ORI “irreparable harm.” (Id. at 3.) ORI additionally argues 

that it is a privately held business, making the redacted financial information (“highly 

sensitive figures”) “extremely closely guarded.” (Id. at 4.) ORI further states that the 

disclosure of this specific financial information is “not crucial” to public interest 

because the unredacted, publically available portions of Exhibit 130 provide the 

relevant foundation in this case. (Id.) ORI’s current request is more narrowly tailored 

than its previous request to seal the entire report, and the Court’s assessment of the 

redactions is consistent with ORI’s explanations. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 9
– 5 – 15cv0595

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 ORI’s requests, the Court finds that ORI provides 

compelling reasons 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. 426.)

B. ECF No. 428

In ECF No. 428, FRI refiled its request to file under seal an unredacted copy 

of ORI’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion to exclude 

Dr. Fahey and Exhibit D to ECF No. 428, which is the unredacted deposition 

transcript of Medallion Labs representative Timothy Peters and Exhibit 10 to the 

Declaration of Sean D. Flaherty in support of ORI’s aforementioned memorandum. 

Originally, on March 17, 2017, the Court considered these documents, denied FRI’s 

request, and granted FRI leave to refile its request. (ECF No. 324.) The Court denied 

these requests two more times (ECF Nos. 417, 420), ordering FRI to correct certain 

deficiencies before it would consider its requests. The Court will now review its 

amended requests. ORI did not file a response to ECF No. 428.

FRI requests to seal portions of Mr. Peters’s deposition transcript (Exhibit D) 

that contain testing methodologies and parameters. (ECF No. 428 at 4-5.) FRI argues 

that this testing information is propriety and disclosure could cause irreparable harm. 

(Id.) The redactions applied to the deposition transcript are narrowly tailored, and 

FRI’s explanations appear to be consistent with the Court’s assessment of this 

exhibit.

FRI argues that the unredacted version of ORI’s aforementioned memorandum 

should be sealed for the same reasons as above, as well as those reasons stated in the 

Court’s earlier Order (ECF No. 420), because it incorporates the same proprietary 

information contained in the related documents. (ECF No. 428 at 6-7.) FRI appears 

to have applied redactions in the memorandum consistent with the Court’s 

assessment of the relevant exhibits as stated in its orders.

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 9
– 6 – 15cv0595

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 requests, 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. 

428.)

C. ECF No. 430

In ECF No. 430, FRI seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits 109, 112, 114-115, 

and 149 to ORI’s consolidated cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition 

to FRI’s motion for partial summary judgment. ORI did not file a response to ECF 

No. 430.

FRI narrowly tailors its request to seal information in Exhibits 114, 115, and 

149. FRI only seeks to redact and seal information identifying current or prospective 

customers of FRI or relating to Propol A pricing information. (ECF No. 430 at 7.) 

FRI argues that competitors could use this information improperly, damaging FRI’s 

business and sales efforts, by either diverting clients, adjusting pricing, or tailoring 

marketing strategies. (Id.) FRI’s explanations appear to be consistent with the Court’s 

assessment of these exhibits.

Exhibit 109 is a supplemental interrogatory response that lists the names of 

FRI’s owners and “sub-owners.” (ECF No. 430 at 4.) FRI tailored its renewed request 

by requesting to seal only the specific names of the “sub-owners”—thirteen of fifteen 

individuals’ or entities’ names listed. (See ECF No. 430-2.)

First, FRI misinterprets the Court’s previous Order regarding a lack of case 

law to support its reasoning. (ECF No. 420 at 9 (“FRI argues that Nevada State law, 

which does not require public disclosure of a corporation’s ownership, justifies 

sealing this document. FRI provides no case law to support its reasoning.”); ECF No. 

430 at 6 (“The Court should thus seal the identities of the holding companies . . . 

because . . . [FRI] has an interest in maintaining that information as confidential, as 

permitted under Nevada law . . . .”).) FRI cites to a string of cases stating that 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 9
– 7 – 15cv0595

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

propriety business or commercially sensitive information is appropriate for sealing, 

but this does not cure the deficiency the Court noted. (ECF No. 430 at 6.) What FRI 

fails to do is to provide legal support explaining why Nevada corporate law allowing 

companies to keep their ownership structure confidential supports sealing that 

information in federal court. In other words, FRI has not shown that “removing 

protections” afforded by state law amounts to a “compelling reason” to seal. (See 

ECF No. 430 at 4-6.) Moreover, FRI has not shown that a corporate ownership 

structure is the type of propriety business or commercially sensitive information that 

merits sealing. See Kite Shipping LLC v. San Juan Nav. Corp., No. 11CV02694 

BTM WVG, 2012 WL 6591579, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2012) (declining to seal 

information relating to corporate structure); In re Hydroxycut Mktg. & Sales 

Practices Litig., No. 09MD2087 BTM AJB, 2011 WL 1135114, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 

29, 2011) (same). 

Second, FRI has failed again to provide any other compelling reason for why 

this limited information in Exhibit 109 should be sealed. (See ECF No. 420 at 9 

(finding that FRI failed to provide “any other reasons, injuries, or risks to support 

sealing this document.”).) Instead, FRI continues to assert conclusory statements that 

it “has an interest” in keeping this information confidential, and focuses on the 

irrelevancy of the redacted names. (ECF No. 430 at 5-6.) While a court may consider 

the relevancy of the information sought to be sealed, a party still must articulate some 

reasoning for why the information should be kept confidential. See Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97 (“Under this stringent ‘compelling reasons’ standard, a 

court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the 

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” (quoting 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179)); see also Apple Inc., 727 F.3d at 1225-26 (analyzing 

both parties’ arguments that making their “detailed product-specific information” 

public would cause competitive harm before considering public interest and 

relevancy). Thus, the Court finds FRI’s reasoning inadequate.

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 9
– 8 – 15cv0595

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

FRI applies many of the same arguments as above to Exhibit 112. (ECF No. 

430 at 4-6.) Exhibit 112 is FRI’s operating agreement. FRI tailored its renewed 

request by requesting to seal only the specific names of entities mentioned throughout 

the agreement. (See, e.g., ECF No. 430-3 at 3.) FRI previously argued that this 

agreement “contain[ed] confidential business information, ‘including, but not limited 

to, detailed financial information about Defendants’ business, such as the allocation 

of net income and net losses.’” (ECF No. 430 at 4 (quoting its previous motion to 

seal, ECF No. 364).) As discussed above, FRI fails again to provide any compelling 

reason for why this limited information should be sealed. See Berkeley Research 

Grp., LLC v. United Potato Growers of Am., Inc., No. CV C 16-07205 WHA, 2017 

WL 1650582, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2017) (finding that an operating agreement 

should not be sealed); Ne. Series of Lockton Companies, LLC v. Bachrach, No. 12 

CV 1695, 2013 WL 3989295, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2013) (same). Instead, FRI 

continues to assert conclusory statements that it “has an interest” in keeping this 

information confidential, and focuses on the irrelevancy of the redacted names. (ECF 

No. 430 at 5-6.) For the reasons stated above, the Court finds FRI’s reasoning 

inadequate.

Having reviewed FRI’s requests, the Court finds FRI failed to carry its burden 

to demonstrate that sealing Exhibits 109 and 112 is appropriate under the compelling 

reasons standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Otherwise, having reviewed 

FRI’s requests, the Court finds that FRI provides compelling reasons to seal Exhibits 

114, 115, and 149. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Therefore, the Court GRANTS

IN PART AND DENIES IN PART FRI’s motion to file documents under seal. 

(ECF No. 430.)

//

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 9
– 9 – 15cv0595

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 & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court:

(1) GRANTS ORI’s request to file documents under seal in ECF No. 426.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the following exhibits under 

seal: ECF Nos. 341-26, 341-28, and 347-21.

(2) GRANTS FRI’s request to file documents under seal in ECF No. 428.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the following exhibits under 

seal: ECF Nos. 429 and 429-1.

(3) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART FRI’s request to file 

documents under seal in ECF No. 430. The Clerk of the Court is directed 

to file the following exhibits under seal: ECF Nos. 431-2, 431-3, and 

431-4.

If FRI wishes to re-file any denied request, addressing the defects identified in 

this order, it may do so no later than December 22, 2017 after the issuance of this 

Order. Otherwise, FRI is instructed to file the unredacted versions of the 

aforementioned documents as directed by the Court in this Order on the public docket

no later than December 22, 2017 after the issuance of this Order. When filing the 

documents on the public docket, FRI 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. Non-compliance with this order or any relevant rules 

may result in sanctions pursuant to Civil Local Rule 83.1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 8, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 433 Filed 12/08/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 9