Jayashankar

Kimera Labs Inc v. Jayashankar

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 20, 20243:21-cv-02137California1,712 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KIMERA LABS INC, Case No.: 21-cv-2137-MMA-DDL

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO

SEAL

EXOCEL BIO INC., RAJ

JAYASHANKAR, ALEJANDRO

[Dkt. Nos. 342, 346] (ALEX) CONTRERAS, and DEB

HUBERS, Defendants. 18 The parties move to file documents related to Defendants’ motion to compel (Dkt. No. 344) under seal. Dkt. Nos. 342, 346. Having considered the parties’ arguments and the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions. I. LEGAL STANDARDS The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). This longstanding principle “is based on the need for federal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.