Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar
3:21-cv-02137
S.D. Cal.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Kimera Labs, an FDA-registered tissue processing and research laboratory, alleges that former employees and others misappropriated its trade secrets and confidential information to create a competing business, Exocel Bio.
- Kimera alleges violations of the federal Trade Secrets Act and unjust enrichment under Florida law.
- The parties have been litigating the case since December 2021, with a second amended complaint as the operative pleading.
- Defendants sought, ex parte, to file under seal a forthcoming Daubert motion meant to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness.
- Defendants argued that the material to be sealed was marked as "confidential" under the protective order in the case.
- Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to seal; however, the court evaluated the request based on the legal standards for sealing court records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for sealing Daubert motion | No opposition to sealing | Material marked confidential under protective order requires sealing | Denied; protective order alone is insufficient; no reasons given for sealing |
| Compelling reason/good cause needed | -- | Did not specify which standard applied; relied on confidentiality designation | Court applies compelling reason standard for merits-related motion |
| Sufficiency of conf. designation | -- | Designation as confidential under order justifies sealing | Court: Confidential designation alone is not sufficient for good cause |
| Opportunity to refile motion | -- | Did not address | Denied without prejudice to refiling with sufficient justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishing strong presumption of public access to court records)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (recognizing the public's right to access to judicial records)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (protective order alone insufficient for sealing court records)
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (requiring reasons and specific findings for sealing judicial records)