INARI MEDICAL INC v. IMPERATIVE CARE INC (2025)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO SEAL

Before the Court are five unopposed administrative motions to seal or to consider whether another party's material should be sealed. See ECF Nos. 23, 34, 35, 45, 49 (“Sealing Motions”). The parties request to seal portions of the briefing on Inari's motion for a preliminary injunction and related exhibits, declarations, and deposition transcripts. Having reviewed the motions, supporting declarations, and proposed redactions, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Sealing Motions.

The Ninth Circuit recognizes “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). “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.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The “compelling reasons” standard applies to requests to seal motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The parties must show compelling reasons to seal the materials at issue here because Inari's motion for a preliminary injunction is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Id. at 1099; see also Celgard, LLC v. Targray Technology Int'l Inc., No. 19-cv-02401-VKD, 2019 WL 3841997, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019).

Additionally, parties must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Sealing requests must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). Requests must identify “the reasons for keeping a document under seal,” and explain the “interests that warrant sealing,” “the injury that will result if sealing is denied,” and “why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. at 79-5(c).

In general, the parties' sealing requests are narrowly tailored to protect confidential information that, if publicly disclosed, may cause competitive harm. The sealing requests are supported by detailed declarations explaining the reasons for sealing. The sealable information includes product pricing, product design, research and development, customer identities, sales strategy, market analysis, and sales and revenue forecasts. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to seal pricing terms); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (finding compelling reasons to seal customer identities and a party's financial performance and business strategy); Juicero, Inc. v. iTaste Co., No. 17-cv-01921-BLF, 2017 WL 2335623, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2017) (finding compelling reasons to seal “proprietary financial and research and development information”). However, certain requests are overbroad or seek to seal information that does not appear to be confidential.

Accordingly, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the materials as indicated in the tables below.

Table 1: Inari's Material

ECF No. Motion to Seal, ECF No. 23 23-3 23-4 23-5 23-6 23-7 23-8 23-9 Motion to Seal, ECF Nos. 34 & 38 34-1 34-2 34-3 34-4 34-5 Motion to Seal, ECF No. 49 49-3 49-4 Document & Portions to Seal Inari's Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Highlighted portions at: 2:23, 2:26-3:1, 5:18-20, 6:2, 6:13-14, 6:16, 6:19, 7:1-6, 7:8-10, 16:19-20, 16:24, 16:27-28, 17:1-15, 30:25-28, 31:7-11, 31:14-19, and 34:26. Ben Merritt Declaration: Portions of paragraphs 8, 38, 45, 49, 53-57, and 63. Brian Brown Declaration: 112:8-23 (image), 113:1-17 (image). Andrew Hykes Declaration: Portions of paragraphs 7, 11, 15-17, 26, 27, 29, and 30. Kevin Strange Declaration: Portions of paragraphs 10, 11, 13, and 14. Exhibit 20 to Inari's Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Sealed in its entirety. Exhibit 21 to Inari's Motion for Preliminary Injunction: Sealed in its entirety. Kevin Strange Deposition Transcript: Sealed in its entirety. Andrew Hykes Deposition Transcript: Sealed in its entirety. Brian Brown Deposition Transcript: Sealed in its entirety. Benjamin Merritt Deposition Transcript: Sealed in its entirety. Imperative Care's Opposition Brief: Highlighted portions at 11:13-16, 11:22-23, 13:3-5, 14:22, 19:2-7, 19:28, 23:10-11, 26:22-23, 27:8-9, 27:13-17, 29:6-7, 29:13, 29:19-20, 29:28-30:1, 30:3-5, 30:8-10, 30:13, 30:16, 30:18, 30:20-25, 32:23, 34:17-18, 34:28-35:1, 35:4-5, and 35:18-20. Inari's Reply Brief: Highlighted portions (in blue) at 13:28, 14:14-15, 14:21-22, and 17:16. Troy Thornton Deposition Transcript (excerpt): Highlighted portion (in yellow) at 75:14-76:8. Granted/Denied GRANTED as to 2:23, 5:18-20, 6:2, 7:2-6, and 34:26. This material reflects confidential product pricing, market analysis, research and development, and customer details. GRANTED in part as to: • 6:13-14: Granted only as to the specific amount invested in research and development. • 16:27-28: Granted only as to the identity of a customer. • 17:1-15: Granted only as to the estimate of lost revenue at 17:10. • 30:25-28: Granted only as to the amount invested at 30:25. • 31:7-11: Granted only as to the estimate of lost revenue at 31:11. DENIED as to 2:26-3:1, 6:16, 6:19, 7:1, 7:8-10, 16:19-20, 16:24, and 31:14-19. This material reflects generalized, non-confidential information regarding Inari's business and the anticipated consequences of Imperative Care's alleged infringement. GRANTED. This material provides a detailed description of confidential product design. GRANTED. This material reflects confidential internal assembly drawings and manufacturing procedures for Inari's products. GRANTED as to the proposed redactions of paragraphs 7, 11, 15-17, 26, and 30. This material reflects confidential product pricing, market analysis, research and development, and customer details. GRANTED in part as to: • Paragraph 27: Granted as to product pricing; denied as to the final sentence. • Paragraph 29: Granted as to the size of Inari's sales force and the amount invested in product development; denied as to the final three sentences. GRANTED as to paragraphs 11 and 14. This material reflects confidential product pricing, market analysis, and estimates of lost revenue. GRANTED in part as to paragraph 10. Granted as to the forecasts in the penultimate sentence. Denied as to the remainder, which reflects market share information that the parties have subsequently deemed non-confidential. DENIED as to paragraph 13. This material reflects market share information that the parties have subsequently deemed non-confidential. GRANTED. This material reflects confidential internal assembly drawings and manufacturing procedures for Inari's products. GRANTED. This material reflects confidential internal assembly drawings and manufacturing procedures for Inari's products. DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Inari's request to seal the entirety of these deposition transcripts, which together span hundreds of pages, is not narrowly tailored. The Court notes that some portions are clearly not confidential. See, e.g., Strange Dep. Tr. 8:20-12:15 (covering deposition basics), 41:8-46:11 (discussing non-confidential portions of the Strange Declaration). Imperative Care has agreed to replace the full deposition transcripts with excerpts containing the relevant testimony. Inari may request narrowly-tailored redactions of the excerpts consistent with the Court's other rulings in this Order in a separate motion. GRANTED as to 13:3-5, 27:8-9, 29:19-20, 30:13, 34:17-18, 34:28-35:1, 35:4-5, and 35:18-20. This material reflects confidential product design, product usage, and clinical analysis. GRANTED in part as to: • 19:2-7: Granted as to the discussion of product design at 19:2-4; denied as to the qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art at 19:5-7. • 30:20-25: Granted, except for the estimated size of the total serviceable market at 30:24, which was not redacted in the cited Strange Declaration. DENIED as to 11:13-16, 11:22-23, 14:22, 19:28, 23:10-11, 26:22-23, 27:13-17, 29:6-7, 29:13, 29:28-30:1, 30:3-5, 30:8-10, 30:16, 30:18, and 32:23. This material reflects generalized, non-confidential information regarding sales and market share and characterizations of deposition testimony and legal positions. GRANTED as to 14:21-22 and 17:16. This material reflects estimates of lost revenue and Inari's investment in product development. DENIED as to 13:28 and 14:14-15. This material reflects market share information that the parties have subsequently deemed non-confidential. DENIED. This material reflects market share information that the parties have subsequently deemed non-confidential.

Table 2: Imperative Care's Material

ECF No. Motion to Seal, ECF No. 35 35-2 35-3 35-4 Motion to Seal, ECF Nos. 45 & 48 45-2 45-3 45-4 45-5 45-6 Document & Portions to Seal Nalbone Declaration: Highlighted portions at 3:1-5, 3:8-9, 3:24, 7:1, 7:5, 7:7, 7:17-18, 7:21-23, and 8:2-11. Scott Declaration: Highlighted portions at 9:26-28, 10:2-4, 10:6-10, and 11:23-25. Imperative Care's Opposition Brief: Highlighted portion at 32:12. Inari's Reply Brief: Highlighted portions (in grey) at 1:6, 1:28, 2:12-13, 2:17-18, 2:22-24, 4:25-26, 4:28, 5:12, 6:21, 6:28, 7:24-25, 14:24-26, 17:20-22, 17:24, 17:26, 18:13-14, 18:26-19:1, and 20:16-17. Lance Scott Deposition Transcript (excerpt): Highlighted portions (in yellow) at 15:15-22, 16:4-16, 18:14-19:22, 23:7-25:25, 33:17-34:16, 41:8-15, 42:9-23, 43:5-44:11, 47:17-48:3, 50:12-53:14, 54:20-55:25, 100:14-101:6, 143:1-21, 144:12-25, 150:21-155:16, 165:10-23, 166:4-6, 168:19-25, 177:5-15, and 181:1-11. Aquilla Turk Deposition Transcript (excerpt): Highlighted portions (in yellow) at 24:1-3, 24:18-26:25, 39:8-40:6, 42:1-10, 42:18-23, 57:1-5, 57:12-18, 58:16-23, and 62:11-20. Dana Tomalty Deposition Transcript (excerpt): Highlighted portions (in yellow) at 21:1-12, 65:1-17, 78:21-79:7, 86:16-18, 87:9, 127:7, 127:19-128:1, and 128:10-11. Phil Nalbone Deposition Transcript (excerpt): Sealed in its entirety (9 pages). Granted/Denied GRANTED as to 3:1-5, 3:8-9, 3:24, 7:1, 7:5, 7:7, 7:17-18, and 8:2-11. This material reflects Imperative Care's confidential product costs, research and development, revenue figures, and business strategy. DENIED as to 7:21-23. This material reflects generalized, non-confidential information regarding the anticipated consequences of an injunction on Imperative Care's business. GRANTED. This material reflects confidential product pricing and sales strategy. GRANTED. This material reflects the confidential acquisition price of Truvic. GRANTED as to 1:6, 1:28, 2:12-13, 2:17-18, 2:22-24, 4:28, 5:12, 6:21, 7:24-25, 14:24-26, 17:20-22, 17:24, 17:26, 18:13-14, 18:26-19:1, and 20:16-17. This material reflects confidential sales figures, sales and revenue forecasts, and details about product usage and development. DENIED as to 4:25-26 and 6:28. This material reflects non-confidential information, including the scope of an expert witness's assignment and characterization of deposition testimony. GRANTED as to 15:15-22, 16:4-16, 18:14-19:22, 23:7-25:25, 42:9-23; 43:5-44:11, 50:12-53:14, 54:20-55:25, 100:14-101:6, 143:1-21, 144:12-25, 150:21-155:16, 165:10-23, 166:4-6, 168:19-25, 177:5-15, and 181:1-11. This material reflects confidential pricing, sales strategy, research and development, and product design and usage. DENIED as to 33:17-34:16, 41:8-15, and 47:17-48:3. This material reflects high-level characterizations of deposition testimony. GRANTED. This material reflects confidential product design and development, market research, and financial details. GRANTED as to 21:1-12, 78:21-79:7, 86:16-18, 87:9, 127:7, 127:19-128:1, and 128:10-11. This material reflects confidential product details and usage. DENIED as to 65:1-17. This high-level testimony does not reveal any confidential information. GRANTED. This material reflects confidential revenue figures, market analysis, and sales forecasts.

By February 21, 2025, the parties shall re-file the materials at issue with redactions that conform to this Order. Then, Inari may submit narrowly-tailored requests to seal the excerpts of the deposition transcripts previously filed at ECF Nos. 34-1 through 34-4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Eumi K. Lee United States District Judge