Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01266/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01266-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332jd Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

1 

19-cv-1266-L-MSB

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 

NantKest, Inc.; and Brink Biologics, Inc., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Merck KGaA, Merck Serono S.p.A., and 

EMD Serono Research & Development 

Institute, Inc., 

Defendants. 

 Case No.: 19-cv-1266-L-MSB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE MOTION TO ENJOIN AND 

SUPPORTING EXHIBITS [Doc. 10] 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal, in whole or in part, 

portions of certain exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin and portions of the 

motion to enjoin itself. For the reasons which follow, the motion is denied. 

Sealing court records implicates the "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 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to seal therefore 

does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from “grand jury transcripts and warrant 

materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong presumption applies in 

favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 

Case 3:19-cv-01266-L-MSB Document 12 Filed 07/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 2 

19-cv-1266-L-MSB

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.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record 

bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access by meeting the 

“compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling reasons standard applies to 

all motions except those that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center 

for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiffs’ 

motion to enjoin arbitration falls within the Ninth Circuit’s “more than tangentially related” 

standard. See Orlob-Radford v. Midland Funding LLC, 2016 WL 5859002, at *8 (E.D. 

Wash. Oct. 5, 2016). 

To meet its burden, the moving party must make a "particularized showing," 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and, further, 

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process. 

In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After 

considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, 

it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis 

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. 

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in 

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 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. The 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. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted). 

 Like Plaintiffs’ failed request to file the Complaint and certain supporting exhibits 

under seal, Plaintiffs’ request here is also based primarily on its subjective considerations 

about its intellectual property, licenses, and terms and conditions undergirding license 

contract. While Plaintiffs contend a compelling interest exists that has substantial 

probability to be harmed in the absence of sealing with no alternative to sealing, the Court 

Case 3:19-cv-01266-L-MSB Document 12 Filed 07/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 3 

19-cv-1266-L-MSB

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

is left to hypothesize what the interest is and how in fact it would be harmed in the absence 

of sealing. Upon reading the lodged exhibits, the Court is able glean the need to possibly 

seal portions of the exhibits but sealing entire documents without a detailed showing of a 

compelling reason that would be harmed is beyond this Court’s authority. Moreover, it is 

Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate the improper purposes that could be furthered if these 

documents are filed publicly. 

Plaintiffs’ inclusion of various non-binding district court cases has not persuaded the 

Court to seal the identified documents and does not satisfy Plaintiffs’ burden to make a 

particularized showing. For example, a compelling reason furthered by sealing the 

documents is not shown by simply citing Schwartz v. Cook, 2016 WL 1301186, (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 4, 2016), because Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate in detail, in its motion or supporting 

declaration, why the information sought to be sealed is narrowly tailored to the reasons for 

such sealing even if some information generally falls into the category of a trade secret or 

amounts to business performance, structure, and finance information. Moreover, due to 

the amount of redaction sought, the Court is significantly limited in the review of the 

motion’s merits until the requisite showing is made. Based on review of the exhibits, it 

appears that every redaction may not be warranted. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file portions of its 

motion to enjoin and certain exhibits under seal is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To 

the extent the Court’s denial disrupts Plaintiffs’ anticipated filing and/or hearing date, 

Plaintiffs must seek a new hearing date for its motion to stay arbitration if needed. 

Plaintiffs are permitted to move to seal these documents again, granted a particularized 

showing can be made. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 18, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-01266-L-MSB Document 12 Filed 07/18/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3