Stemcell Technologies Canada Inc. v. StemExpress, LLC

Background

The court considered motions to file portions of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment under seal. It applied the strong presumption that court records should be public. Because the filings accompanied dispositive motions, the parties seeking secrecy had to show compelling reasons supported by specific facts. The court noted that protecting possible trade secrets can qualify as a compelling reason, and that alleged trade-secret misappropriation and confidential information were central issues in the case.

Rulings on Stemcell’s Opening Brief and Exhibits

For the motion concerning Stemcell’s opening brief and exhibits, the court ruled as follows:

- Redactions in Stemcell’s opening brief were denied as to references to the depositions of Hussy and Rebolvaba, and granted otherwise. - Exhibit C: granted. - Exhibit E: granted as to pages 34–96 and denied as to the remaining pages because StemExpress did not seek to seal them. - Exhibits F and G: denied because StemExpress did not seek to seal them.

The court also granted the motion at Dkt. No. 173 as moot because the related motion had been terminated and later refiled. The refiled motion at Dkt. No. 192 was addressed separately.

Rulings on StemExpress’s Opening/Opposition Brief and Exhibits

For StemExpress’s opening/opposition brief and attached exhibits, including one corrected exhibit, the court ruled as follows:

- Redactions in StemExpress’s opening brief: granted. - Exhibits 52–55 and 83–86: denied. - All other declarations and exhibits at Dkt. Nos. 192 and 194: granted.

Rulings on Stemcell’s Reply and Exhibits

For Stemcell’s reply and exhibits at Dkt. No. 199, the court ruled as follows:

- Exhibits 1–2: granted. - Exhibits 3, 4, and 5: denied. - Exhibit 6: granted. - The Llewellyn declaration: granted. - Exhibits 1–4: granted. - Exhibits 5–8: denied. - Exhibits 9–15: granted. - The Sauvé declaration: denied without prejudice to a much narrower renewed motion. The court expressed skepticism that anything in the declaration warranted sealing. - Exhibits A–I: granted. - Exhibit J: denied. - The Go declaration: granted. - Exhibit A: granted. - The Csontos and Martinelli declarations: granted.

Rulings on the Addendum

For the addendum concerning Stemcell’s reply at Dkt. No. 200:

- The Sauvé supplemental declaration: denied. - Exhibit K: granted.

Effect of the Order

To the extent the motions were denied, the original filing party was ordered to file unredacted versions on the docket within 14 days. For the Sauvé declaration, the party could instead file a much narrower renewed motion within 14 days. The court cautioned that allowing material to remain sealed at this stage does not mean it will be sealed at trial. Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order on April 3, 2023.