Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04312
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Tevra Brands v. Bayer HealthCare, Judge Freeman granted two sealing motions, terminated a corrected filing, and ordered narrower public refilings.
Tevra Brands LLC and Bayer HealthCare LLC were affected by the sealing rulings and the required public refilings; the rulings also affected public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC involved three administrative motions about sealing information connected to the parties’ motions in limine. Bayer sought to seal confidential business information in a joint pretrial statement and a related order.
The court found compelling reasons to seal the requested portions because they contained confidential or competitively sensitive business information about internal strategies, pricing, business practices, and market analysis. The court also found the requests narrowly tailored.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted ECF Nos. 361 and 418, terminated ECF No. 417, and ordered the parties to refile public versions with narrower redactions by July 24, 2024.
The detailed version
- Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC · No. 5:19-cv-04312
- Beth Freeman
- July 17, 2024
Background
The court considered three administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ motions in limine:
- ECF No. 361, a motion asking whether another party’s material should be sealed.
- ECF No. 417, a joint motion to file under seal an order regarding motions in limine.
- ECF No. 418, another joint motion to file under seal an order regarding motions in limine.
For ECF No. 361, Bayer submitted a declaration seeking to seal selected portions of the joint pretrial statement. Bayer described the information as confidential business information relating to its retailer and licensing agreements and customers. The court identified the material to be sealed as highlighted portions of ECF 361-3, the joint pretrial statement, at specified portions of pages 18 through 20. The court found that the material concerned internal financial and business strategies and pricing.
For ECF No. 418, Bayer sought to seal selected portions of the order regarding motions in limine. Bayer described the material as competitively sensitive information concerning its internal business strategy and practices, including its analysis of the flea-and-tick market and its surveying practices and methodology. The court identified highlighted portions on page 9, lines 26 and 27, and page 10, line 2.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a public right of access. When records connected more than tangentially to the underlying claims are sealed, the party seeking secrecy must show compelling reasons that outweigh public access. For records connected only tangentially to the case, the lower good-cause standard applies. The court applied the compelling-reasons standard here and required the requests to be narrowly tailored.
Rulings
The court found compelling reasons to seal the specified portions of the joint pretrial statement because they contained confidential information about internal financial and business strategies and pricing. It also found compelling reasons to seal the specified portions of the order regarding motions in limine because they contained competitively sensitive information about Bayer’s internal business strategy and practices. In both matters, the court found the requests narrowly tailored.
The court ordered:
- ECF No. 361: granted. - ECF No. 417: terminated. The court stated that ECF No. 418 appeared to be a corrected motion intended to supersede ECF No. 417. - ECF No. 418: granted.
The parties were ordered to refile public versions of each filing where the court-approved redactions and sealing were narrower than the redactions in the existing public versions. The deadline was July 24, 2024.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.