Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01266/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01266-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

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

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.: 3:19-cv-1266-L-MSB 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL [Doc. 40] 

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS AND SUPPORTING 

EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL [Doc. 44] 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ motions to file portions of 

documents under seal. On July 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ administrative 

motion to file motion to enjoin and supporting exhibits under seal [Doc. 17] and Plaintiffs’ 

administrative motion to file Complaint and supporting exhibits under seal [Doc. 19]. In 

that order, the Court found that public disclosure of these documents might harm 

Defendant’s competitive standing in its business. See Doc. 27. The Court also found that 

a particularized showing had been made supporting the necessity of the redactions of 

portions of the Complaint and supporting exhibits. See id. 

Case 3:19-cv-01266-L-MSB Document 47 Filed 08/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
 2 

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

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 

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. Whether a party’s proffered reasons for filing 

documents under seal are compelling is fact specific and left to the “sound discretion of 

the trial court.” Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). If public access 

to a document might harm a litigant’s competitive standing in its business, the Court has 

discretion to allow a party to file the document under seal. Id. at 598–99. 

Here, Defendants seek to file under seal the following: (1) certain exhibits to 

Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin pending AAA Arbitration, (2) 

portions of Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin AAA Arbitration 

referencing the exhibits, and (3) portions of the declaration of Vanita Sood, Ph.D. in 

support of Defendants’ opposition which reference the exhibits. See Doc. 40. In their 

motion, Defendants clearly tie its request to seal portions of exhibits A, D, G, and H to to 

portions of documents the Court previously ordered to be filed in the July 30, 2019 order. 

See id. In light of the Court’s July 30, 2019 order redacting the same information and the 

sustained need for confidentiality of such information, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion to file the above-mentioned ortions of documents under seal [Doc. 40]. 

 Also, Plaintiffs seek to file portions of exhibits supporting its opposition to 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under seal. See Doc. 44. While Plaintiffs’ motion to seal 

such documents was bereft of any specificity regarding a compelling interest served by the 

sealing and that would be harmed by disclosure, the Court finds that a particularized 

Case 3:19-cv-01266-L-MSB Document 47 Filed 08/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
 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

showing has been made, in the Declaration of Sandra Haberny, supporting the necessity of 

sealing of the portions of the requested documents ((a) Arbitration Demand discussing 

specific aspects of the Confidential License Agreement; (b) Amended Arbitration Demand 

discussing specific aspects of the Confidential License Agreement; (c) Confidential 

License Agreement; and (d) September 16, 2014 EMD Serono Payment Advice Note). See

Doc. 44-1. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file its 

opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and supporting exhibits under seal [Doc. 44]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 13, 2019 

Case 3:19-cv-01266-L-MSB Document 47 Filed 08/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3