Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00595-22/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: FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND 

SHIMIZU CHEMICAL CORP.’S 

JOINT MOTION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

[ECF No. 333] 

 v. 

FIBER RESEARCH 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM. 

Presently before the Court is Defendants Fiber Research International, LLC 

(“FRI”) and Shimizu Chemical Corp.’s (“Shimizu”) renewed motion to file certain 

documents under seal.1

 FRI states that they met and conferred with Plaintiff Obesity 

Research Institute, LLC (“ORI”) and devised a plan to renew their requests for leave 

to file documents under seal, which includes “each party . . . re-apply[ing] to file 

 

1 Now that Shimizu has been dismissed from this action, the Court will refer to Defendants 

collectively also as “FRI” for the purposes of this order. 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
 – 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 

under seal documents relating to their own confidentiality designations, regardless of 

which party initially applied to seal the documents, since each party is in the best 

position to know why their respective information should be maintained as 

confidential.” (Persinger Decl. ¶ 5.) 

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 

March 17, 2017 Order, a format which FRI has also adopted in its 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 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
 – 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 

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 

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.” 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
 – 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 

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). 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. ECF No. 216 

In its renewed motion with respect to ECF No. 216, FRI request leave to file 

under seal Exhibits 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11 in addition to portions of the memorandum in 

support of ORI’s motion to exclude Dr. Fahey. As FRI describes, these exhibits and 

portions of the memorandum generally appear to present or discuss proprietary 

testing methods. Though the entirety of Exhibits 9 and 11 warrant sealing, FRI fails 

to present compelling reasons that the entirety of both deposition transcripts and 

portions of the memorandum warrant the same treatment because the scope of the 

request is too broad. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

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

motion for leave to file under seal the documents related to ECF No. 216. 

Specifically, FRI is only given leave to file Exhibits 9 and 11 under seal. FRI is may 

file a revised motion for leave to file the remaining exhibits and memorandum under 

seal, but the revised motion must specify portions that present compelling reasons 

for sealing. 

B. ECF No. 221 

Similar to the reasons justifying sealing Exhibits 9 and 11 in ECF No. 216—

namely, that portions sought to be sealed contain proprietary information or other 

information that warrants sealing—FRI sufficiently provides compelling reasons to 

file under seal specific portions of ORI’s opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude the 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
 – 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 

report and testimony of Dr. Laura Lerner. Thus, the Court GRANTS FRI’s motion 

for leave to file under seal portions of ORI’s opposition brief. (ECF No. 221.) If it is 

not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file the opposition brief 

with the appropriate redactions on the public docket. 

C. ECF No. 223 

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

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to 

file portions of ORI’s opposition to FRI’s motion to exclude ORI’s non-retained 

experts related. (ECF No. 223.) If it is not already available on the public docket, FRI 

must also file ORI’s opposition brief with the appropriate redactions on the public 

docket. 

D. ECF No. 236 

For the same reasons the Court rejected leave to file under seal the entirety of 

two deposition transcripts with respect to ECF No. 216, the Court finds that FRI fails 

to present compelling reasons to seal the entirety of Exhibits 4 and 5. That said, FRI 

presents compelling reasons to seal certain portions of ORI’s opposition to Shimizu’s 

motion to dismiss that discusses proprietary information. 

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

request. (ECF No. 236.) Specifically, FRI is only given leave to file under seal 

portions of ORI’s opposition brief. If it is not already available on the public docket, 

FRI must also file the opposition brief with the appropriate redactions on the public 

docket. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
 – 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 

E. ECF No. 250 

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

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to 

file portions of ORI’s reply to FRI’s motion to exclude Dr. Fahey. (ECF No. 250.) If 

it is not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file the reply brief with 

the appropriate redactions on the public docket. 

F. ECF No. 303 

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

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to 

file portions of ORI’s surreply in opposition to Shimizu’s motion to dismiss. (ECF 

No. 303.) If it is not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file ORI’s 

surreply brief with the appropriate redactions on the public docket. 

G. ECF No. 318 

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

the opposition brief related to ECF No. 221, the Court also GRANTS FRI leave to 

file portions of ORI’s reply in support of its objection to the magistrate judge’s order 

regarding the motion to compel reproduction of documents (ECF No. 320). If it is 

not already available on the public docket, FRI must also file ORI’s reply brief with 

the appropriate redactions on the public 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 Nos. 216 and 

236, and GRANTS the motion in its entirety for ECF Nos. 221, 223, 250, 303, and 

318. 

// 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
 – 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 

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

if not already available on the public docket, FRI 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 FRI has 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 24, 2017 

Case 3:15-cv-00595-BAS-MDD Document 376 Filed 07/31/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7