UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA v. CAPTION HEALTH INC (2024)

United States District Court, N.D. California.

UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, Plaintiff, v. CAPTION HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 24-cv-03200-EKL

Decided: December 26, 2024

Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Ashurst Perkins Coie U.S. LLP, Seattle, WA, Dorianne Alecia Salmon, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Seattle, WA, Moeka Takagi, Ashurst Perkins Coie U.S. LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiff. Jennifer Seraphine, Vyson Hsu, Thompson Hine LLP, San Mateo, CA, Andrew Himebaugh, Pro Hac Vice, Thompson Hine LLP, Chicago, IL, Jeffrey Cooper Metzcar, Pro Hac Vice, Thompson Hine LLP, Miamisburg, OH, Jesse Leigh Jenike-Godshalk, Pro Hac Vice, Thompson Hine LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Marla R. Butler, Pro Hac Vice, Thompson Hine LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

Before the Court is Defendants' unopposed administrative motion to file under seal, ECF No. 34 (“Motion”). Defendants request to seal limited portions of their answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims that reflect proprietary and confidential aspects of Defendants' product design. Having reviewed the Motion, supporting declarations, and proposed redactions, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

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). Defendants acknowledge that they must show “compelling reasons” to seal the materials at issue here. Mot. at 1.

The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the highlighted portions of the answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims at paragraphs 20, 32 through 38, 40 through 43, and 45. Defendants have shown that the product design details at issue are confidential, and disclosure could cause Defendants competitive harm. See Butler Decl., ECF No. 34-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Eumi K. Lee United States District Judge

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network