Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04312
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Tevra Brands v. Bayer HealthCare, Judge Freeman granted four and denied three administrative motions concerning sealed court materials.
Tevra Brands LLC and Bayer HealthCare LLC, whose trial-related materials were either sealed in specified portions or left unsealed; the order also affected public access to those court records.
What happened
Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC involved seven administrative motions asking the court to seal or keep sealed selected trial-related materials, including exhibits, briefs, and deposition testimony.
The court applied rules that require either compelling reasons or good cause to overcome the public’s general right to inspect court records. It found that some materials contained confidential business information, including retailer terms, financial projections, marketing strategies, internal communications, and business decisions.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motions at ECF Nos. 422, 427, 449, and 459, and denied the motions at ECF Nos. 428, 430, and 453. The denials were without prejudice, and the court set deadlines for any renewed motions and for filing less-redacted public versions.
The detailed version
- Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC · No. 5:19-cv-04312
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
The court considered seven administrative motions filed in connection with the parties’ trial briefs. The motions sought to seal or maintain the confidentiality of selected portions of trial exhibits, deposition transcripts, trial briefs, and motions.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records more than tangentially related to the merits of a case, a party seeking to seal them must show compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access. For records unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits, the lower good-cause standard applies. That standard requires a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice from disclosure; broad, unsupported claims of harm are insufficient.
Rulings
The court granted ECF No. 422. Tevra sought to seal selected portions of trial exhibits and deposition transcripts containing confidential terms offered to named retailers, financial information such as profit estimates and projections, internal business communications, agreements with named entities, and competitive strategy. The court found compelling reasons to seal the identified material and found the request narrowly tailored. The ruling covered the entire versions of Trial Exhibits 2130, 2133, 2319, and 2305, as well as specified portions of deposition-related exhibits concerning business strategy, projections, sales projections, financial decisions, invested funds, marketing strategy, and agreements with named entities.
The court granted ECF No. 427. Bayer sought to seal highlighted portions of its trial brief concerning retailer agreements, customers, and marketing strategies. The court found compelling reasons to seal those portions and found the request narrowly tailored.
The court denied ECF No. 428 because Tevra did not submit a corresponding declaration. The court denied ECF No. 430 because Bayer did not submit a corresponding declaration.
The court granted ECF No. 449. Tevra sought to seal highlighted portions of Bayer’s motion concerning communications and business decisions involving named retailers. The court found compelling reasons to seal the specified portions and found the request narrowly tailored.
The court denied ECF No. 453. The opinion states that although Bayer filed that motion, Tevra later declared that it did not seek any redactions. The opinion also identifies the filing as ECF No. 428 in that discussion, which appears inconsistent with the motion number used elsewhere in the order.
The court granted ECF No. 459. Tevra sought to seal highlighted portions of Bayer’s motion to exclude testimony regarding efficacy and safety. The court found compelling reasons to seal material concerning communications to named retailers about marketing and comparisons with Tevra’s product, including the names of those retailers. The court found the request narrowly tailored.
Disposition and deadlines
The order granted ECF Nos. 422, 427, 449, and 459, and denied ECF Nos. 428, 430, and 453. It expressly stated that all denials were without prejudice. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration had to be filed by August 13, 2024. The parties had to file public versions with narrower redactions by August 20, 2024, unless they filed a renewed sealing motion for a document in the filing.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.