Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kimera Labs Inc. is the plaintiff in a case pending in the Southern District of California against Raj Jayashankar, Exocel Bio Inc., Alejandro Contreras, and Deb Hubers. While preparing pretrial filings, each side sought to keep portions of its papers out of the public record. On August 13, 2026, Kimera moved to file an unredacted version of its Memorandum of Contentions of Fact and Law under seal, asserting that the redacted portions contain trade secrets designated as confidential (Doc. 518). The same day, the defendants moved to seal an unredacted version of their own memorandum (Doc. 520), citing Kimera's confidentiality designations and its contentions about the scope of its alleged trade secrets. On September 18, 2026, the parties jointly moved to seal the unredacted Proposed Pretrial Order, stating that it contains trade secrets materials designated as confidential (Doc. 526).
For each filing, the parties lodged an unredacted version highlighting the portions withheld from the public (Docs. 519, 521, 527) and filed a redacted public version (Docs. 518-2, 522, and 526-2 through 526-10). The order is a ruling on sealing only. It does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether any information is in fact a trade secret.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro granted all three motions (Docs. 518, 520, and 526). The court reasoned that preserving the confidentiality of Plaintiff's alleged trade secret is a sufficiently compelling reason to overcome the strong presumption in favor of access to court filings, and that the parties had narrowed their requests for sealing to trade secrets materials. It cited Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that publication of materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome the strong presumption favoring access.
The order is brief and applies one rationale to all three filings. It does not separately analyze individual redactions. It makes no finding that the information at issue qualifies as a trade secret, and it refers to Kimera's trade secret as alleged. The court did not address how long the materials will stay sealed. The merits remain open, including whether Kimera can establish its claims and whether the defendants have defenses to them. This is a district court ruling on a procedural matter, it is not designated as reported, and it carries no precedential weight beyond whatever persuasive value its reasoning has.
Key Takeaways
- A court may treat protection of an alleged trade secret as a compelling reason to seal, even though it has made no finding that the information qualifies as a trade secret.
- Narrowing the request to trade secrets materials was part of the court's stated rationale, so parties seeking sealing should tailor their requests rather than ask for blanket confidentiality.
- Lodging unredacted versions with the withheld portions highlighted, alongside redacted public versions, let the court see exactly what the parties wanted kept from the public.
- A defendant may base its own sealing motion on the plaintiff's confidentiality designations and trade secret contentions, as the defendants did here.
- The order resolves only sealing. Trade secret status, liability, and every other merits issue remain to be decided.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a Southern District of California judge applies the Ninth Circuit's strong presumption of access to pretrial filings in a trade secret case. Contention memoranda and pretrial orders help define the issues for trial, so parties in such cases often must describe their claimed secrets in some detail. This ruling confirms that Apple v. Psystar supports sealing those descriptions when the request is limited to trade secrets materials.
Practitioners should read the ruling narrowly. It is a short, non-precedential order without extended analysis of particular redactions, so it offers limited guidance on broader sealing requests or on material that is merely commercially sensitive. It also leaves open whether the sealed material will stay sealed through or after trial. A later request to seal trial exhibits or testimony may be evaluated on its own record.