1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB SYSTEMS, INC., a California 11 corporation, MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL LLC, a California ORDER GRANTING 12 limited liability company, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE

MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO

13 HONG KONG LTD., a Hong Kong L.R. 79.2 company, 14 [DKT. NO. 113.] Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 IQVIA INC., a Connecticut corporation, 17 IQVIA LTD., a UK company, IQVIA AG, a Swiss company, OMAR 18 GHOSHEH, individually, AMIT SADANA individually, and DOES 1- 19 20, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Before the Court 1s Defendants’ Motion to Seal the following documents: (i) 3 | portions of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First 4 | Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(2) (“Reply”) and (ii) portions of the declaration 5 | of Amit Sadana (“Sadana Declaration”) filed concurrently with Defendants’ Reply in 6 | Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Under Rule 7 | 12(6)). 8 The Motion to Seal seeks to have certain portions of the Reply and Sadana 9 | Declaration permanently sealed from public view because they were generated or 10 | produced in, or otherwise relate to, prior confidential arbitration proceedings before the 11 | Dubai International Financial Centre-London Court of International Arbitration and 12 | because they contain sensitive, non-public confidential business information, the 13 | disclosure of which would subject Plaintiffs and third-parties to a risk of substantial 14 || harm or prejudice. These portions include excerpts from the Arbitral Tribunal’s Partial 15 | Final Award and descriptions of confidential business agreements, both of which detail 16 | confidential business information belonging to, among others Defendants, non-party 17 | Dimensions, and other non-party contracting entities. See McArdle v. AT&T Mobility 18 | LLC, No. 09-cv-1117 CW, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218070, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 19 | 2018) (finding “compelling reasons” to seal arbitration documents). 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds there exist compelling reasons to seal the 21 || requested information, submitted in support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion 22 | to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint Under Rules 12(b)(2), and Defendants 23 || Motion to Seal is therefore GRANTED. It is ORDERED that identified portions shall 24 | be SEALED until further order of this Court. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 5, 2020 7 sale 0s ( Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 38 United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28