Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04312
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 18
In Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, Judge Freeman granted four sealing requests, partly granted three, and denied one, with denials without prejudice.
Tevra Brands LLC and Bayer HealthCare LLC, whose filings and exhibits were subject to the sealing rulings, as well as public access to those court records.
What happened
In Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, the court considered eight requests to seal portions of filings and exhibits connected to the parties’ motions about what evidence could be used at trial. The requests concerned confidential business information, including business strategies, retailer agreements, customer information, sales information, and product-formula information.
The court granted the requests in ECF Nos. 369, 375, 377, and 379. It granted in part and denied in part the requests in ECF Nos. 366, 381, and 383, and denied the request in ECF No. 385. The court said all denials were without prejudice and allowed any renewed sealing motion or declaration to be filed by July 17, 2024.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman applied the standards governing public access to court records and found that some requested redactions were supported by good cause, while others were already public, were not shown to be competitively sensitive, or were not narrowly tailored.
The detailed version
- Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC · No. 5:19-cv-04312
- Beth Freeman
- June 26, 2024
Background
The court issued an omnibus order addressing eight administrative motions to seal filings and exhibits submitted in connection with motions in limine, which are requests asking the court to limit or exclude evidence. The materials included motions, oppositions, declarations, deposition excerpts, email chains, and other exhibits. The parties argued that disclosure could reveal competitively sensitive business information, including internal business strategies and practices, market analysis, survey methods, retailer agreements, customer information, sales information, confidential communications, and product-formula information.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, a party must show compelling reasons to overcome that presumption. For records attached to motions that are not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits, the lower good-cause standard applies. That standard requires a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice if the information is disclosed. The court also required the requested redactions to be narrowly tailored.
Rulings
- ECF No. 366: Granted in part and denied in part. The court denied sealing for page 5, line 8 of Tevra’s Motion in Limine No. 1 because the information was already publicly disclosed. It granted sealing for page 5, line 13 and for Exhibits A, B, and C to the supporting declaration because those materials contained competitively sensitive information about Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices. - ECF No. 369: Granted. The court allowed sealing of specified portions of Bayer’s Motions in Limine Nos. 4 and 5 and related deposition and declaration exhibits because they contained confidential information about retailer agreements and customer information. - ECF No. 375: Granted. The court allowed sealing of specified portions and entire exhibits containing confidential loss estimates, communications with named retailers, sales information, proposals, competitive strategy, internal communications, business strategy, account notes, research and development information, and product-formula information. - ECF No. 377: Granted. The court allowed sealing of specified portions of Tevra’s opposition to Bayer’s Motion in Limine No. 4 because they contained competitively sensitive information about Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices. - ECF No. 379: Granted. The court allowed sealing of specified portions of Tevra’s opposition to Bayer’s Motion in Limine No. 2 because they contained competitively sensitive information about Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices. - ECF No. 381: Granted in part and denied in part. The court denied sealing for the entire email-chain exhibit because Bayer had not shown that the information was competitively sensitive and the request was not narrowly tailored. The court granted sealing for the other listed exhibits and specified deposition excerpts because they contained competitively sensitive information about Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices. - ECF No. 383: Granted in part and denied in part. The court granted sealing for Exhibit A because it contained competitively sensitive information about Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices. It denied sealing for Exhibit B because Bayer had not shown that the information was competitively sensitive and the request was not narrowly tailored. - ECF No. 385: Denied. The court denied sealing for the requested portions of Bayer’s opposition because the information in line 3 was already publicly disclosed and Bayer had not shown that the figure in line 4 was competitively sensitive.
Further directives
The court stated that all denials were without prejudice. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration had to be filed by July 17, 2024. The parties also had to file public versions of filings with narrower redactions when the court granted less sealing than appeared in the existing public versions, unless they filed a renewed sealing motion for the document.
Judge
Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on June 26, 2024.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.