Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 16, 2020

Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:19-cv-04312
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Tevra Brands v. Bayer HealthCare, Judge Freeman granted both parties’ motions to seal documents supporting a moot motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

Tevra Brands LLC and Bayer HealthCare LLC, whose specified filings will remain under seal; the public’s access to those filings is also affected.

What happened

In Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer asked to seal parts of its request for judicial notice supporting its motion to dismiss, and Tevra asked to seal parts of its sur-reply opposing that motion.

The court explained that judicial records are generally open to the public, but found no public interest in the documents because the motion to dismiss the complaint had been terminated as moot and would not receive a judicial decision.

Judge Freeman granted both administrative motions to seal. The documents filed at docket entries 42 and 65 will remain under seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC · No. 5:19-cv-04312
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Mar. 16, 2020

Background

The order addressed two administrative motions to file documents under seal under Civil Local Rule 79-5. Bayer HealthCare LLC sought to seal portions of its request for judicial notice supporting its motion to dismiss. Tevra Brands LLC sought to seal portions of its sur-reply opposing Bayer’s motion to dismiss.

Court’s analysis

The court recognized the general public right to inspect and copy judicial records. It stated that parties ordinarily must show compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access. Here, however, the court found no public interest in viewing the documents because the motion to dismiss the complaint had later been terminated as moot. As a result, there would be no judicial decision on that motion.

Ruling

The court granted the administrative motions to seal. The copies of the documents filed at ECF 42 and ECF 65 will remain under seal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.