Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC

Background

This order addresses two administrative motions about sealing court filings. Impossible Foods filed a motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed at ECF No. 275 and a motion to file material under seal at ECF No. 276. The materials concerned an opposition to the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and related exhibits.

The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because the filings were more than tangentially related to the case’s underlying claims. Under that standard, sealing may be allowed when public disclosure would cause harm, including harm to a party’s competitive position. The court also required the requests to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and to be narrowly tailored.

ECF No. 276

The court granted Impossible Foods’ motion to seal portions of its opposition and an attached exhibit. Impossible Foods asserted that the material contained critical business information, financial data, and marketing strategies whose disclosure could cause significant harm and put it at a competitive disadvantage. The court found compelling reasons to seal the identified portions and found the request narrowly tailored.

ECF No. 275

The court granted in part and denied in part Impossible Foods’ motion concerning material designated as confidential by the defendants. The defendants supported sealing information involving commercial development, the identities of presently unannounced commercial collaborators, and business and financial decision-making strategies.

The court denied as overbroad the requested sealing of listed portions of Impossible Foods’ opposition and the declaration of Forrest Flemming, III. It granted sealing for specified portions of an exhibit containing confidential financial information, nonpublic price terms, order quantities, nonpublic product-formula information, and nonpublic pricing information. It denied sealing for the remaining portions of several documents because the defendants did not request sealing, and it denied sealing of other documents pursuant to ECF No. 240.

Disposition

The court ordered that ECF No. 275 was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and ECF No. 276 was GRANTED. The court expressly stated that all denials were WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any refiled administrative motion or declaration had to be filed by September 29, 2025. By that date, the parties also had to refile public versions of filings when the court-approved sealing was narrower than the existing redactions, unless they filed a renewed sealing motion.

The caption identifies a defendant as Impossible X LLC, while the discussion refers to defendants Impossible LLC and Joel Runyon; this summary preserves the names as they appear in the opinion.