Pardi
Pardi v. Tricida, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL PARDI, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00076-HSG
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
9 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
10 TRICIDA, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 139 Defendants. 11
12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Gerrit Klaerner (“Klaerner”)’s motion to seal 14 related to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and the briefing for Klaerner’s motion 15 to dismiss.1 See Dkt. No. 139. Interested non-party Renibus Therapeutics, Inc. (“Renibus”) filed 16 a statement in support of Klaerner’s motion to seal, seeking to maintain under seal a small portion 17 of the information identified by Klaerner in his sealing request. See Dkt. No. 140. For the reasons 18 detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal as to the narrower set of information 19 identified by Renibus, and DENIES the motion to seal as to the remainder of the information 20 identified by Klaerner. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when…