Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC

Background

The parties filed administrative motions to seal documents connected to their motions in limine. The court explained that documents connected to motions that can decide a case generally require “compelling reasons” for sealing, while documents connected to motions that do not decide a case require the lower “good cause” standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Because these materials related to motions in limine, the court applied the good-cause standard.

Plaintiff’s Motion, Docket No. 197

Phillip Racies sought to seal portions of his first and second motions in limine and Exhibits 1 and 2 to a supporting declaration. The exhibits contained California sales information for Prevagen that Quincy Bioscience had designated confidential. Quincy submitted a declaration stating that the information was not known to the public or its competitors, concerned approximate sales to third-party retailers, and could harm its competitive position if disclosed.

The court found that the proposed sealing of the relevant portions of the first and second motions in limine and Exhibit 1 was narrowly limited to the sales information. But Exhibit 2 also contained communications between the parties that did not expressly disclose the sealable information. The court therefore granted in part and denied in part Racies’s motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 and the specified portions of his motions in limine.

Defendant’s Motion, Docket No. 203

Quincy Bioscience sought to seal Exhibit 1 to a declaration supporting its third motion in limine. The only justification offered was that Racies had designated the material “Highly Confidential.” The court held that a confidentiality designation alone does not establish that a document is sealable. The court also found that Quincy’s motion did not comply with the local rule requiring support for sealing and that Racies, as the designating party, had not filed the required declaration within four days. The court denied Quincy’s motion.

Plaintiff’s Motion, Docket No. 208

Racies also sought to seal portions of his opposition to Quincy’s first motion in limine and Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 attached to a supporting declaration. Racies relied only on Quincy’s designation of the materials as confidential, and Quincy did not submit the required supporting declaration. Because a confidentiality designation alone was insufficient, the court denied Racies’s motion.

Order

The court granted in part and denied in part Racies’s administrative motion to seal the specified portions of his first and second motions in limine and Exhibits 1 and 2, denied Quincy’s administrative motion to seal Exhibit 1 supporting its third motion in limine, and denied Racies’s administrative motion concerning his opposition to Quincy’s first motion in limine and Exhibits 1, 2, and 4.

The court directed the parties to file public versions of documents for which sealing had been denied within seven days. The parties could also file new motions to seal within seven days that complied with the requirements discussed in the order. Documents for which sealing was granted would remain under seal.