Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-04312
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Tevra Brands v. Bayer HealthCare, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part motions to seal, with denials without prejudice.
Tevra Brands LLC and Bayer HealthCare LLC were affected because the court decided which portions of their complaint, motion-to-dismiss briefing, and exhibits could be sealed from public access.
What happened
In Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC, the parties asked the court to seal information in the second amended complaint and briefs related to Bayer’s motion to dismiss. The requested material included pricing, retailer agreements, financial information, and business strategies.
The court said judicial records are generally open to the public and that sealing requires specific, compelling reasons. It found those reasons for sensitive financial and business information, but not for information that a party had not designated as confidential or supported with a declaration.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied in part the administrative motions to seal. The denials were without prejudice, and the court allowed renewed sealing motions by October 14, 2021.
The detailed version
- Tevra Brands LLC v. Bayer HealthCare LLC · No. 5:19-cv-04312
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 7, 2021
Background
The court considered administrative motions to seal portions of the second amended complaint, Tevra Brands LLC’s opposition to Bayer’s motion to dismiss, Bayer’s motion to dismiss, Bayer’s reply, and exhibits to that briefing. Tevra sought to seal information concerning offers to retailers and comparisons between its pricing and Bayer’s pricing. Bayer sought to seal information concerning internal financial and business strategies, pricing, and retailer agreements.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the records concerned motions more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, the parties had to show compelling reasons to overcome that presumption. Sensitive business information that could harm a party’s competitive position may qualify, but broad claims of harm and reliance only on a confidentiality designation or protective order are not enough. The sealing requests also had to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and be narrowly tailored.
Rulings on the sealing requests
The court found compelling reasons to seal sensitive financial and business information and ruled as follows:
- ECF No. 195-3: The court denied sealing as to page 39, line 11, because Bayer did not designate that information as confidential. It granted sealing as to all other listed excerpts as Bayer’s confidential internal financial and business information. - The excerpt identified at ECF No. 195-3, page 2, lines 7–8: The court granted sealing as Tevra’s confidential internal financial and business information. - ECF No. 199-12: The court granted sealing as to the listed excerpts as Bayer’s confidential internal financial and business information. - ECF No. 200, Exhibits 1–11: The court granted sealing as to the entire exhibits as Bayer’s confidential internal financial and business information. It noted that Bayer had not filed an unredacted copy of Exhibit 11 and requested that Bayer file one under seal. - ECF No. 210-4: The court denied sealing as to the specified excerpts because Bayer did not designate that information as confidential. It granted sealing as to the other listed excerpts as Bayer’s confidential internal financial and business information. - ECF No. 215-2: The court denied sealing as to page 10, lines 9–11, because Bayer stated that the information was Tevra’s confidential information but Tevra had not provided a supporting declaration. It granted sealing as to the other listed excerpts as Bayer’s confidential internal and business information. - ECF No. 216, Exhibits 1–3: The court denied sealing as to Exhibit 2, ECF No. 215-6, for the same lack of a supporting declaration from Tevra. It granted sealing as to the other exhibits as Bayer’s confidential internal and business information.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the parties’ administrative motions were granted in part and denied in part. The denials were all without prejudice. The court stated that any renewed administrative motion to seal the identified material had to be filed by October 14, 2021.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.