Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA

8 Citing cases

  1. San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego LLC

    3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 3036302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (collecting cases); see also In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”); Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”). Because Defendants' sealing motion concern their briefing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the compelling reasons standard applies.

  2. San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego LLC

    3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal. May. 8, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    ; see also In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”); Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”).

  3. San Diego Detox, LLC v. Detox Ctr. of San Diego LLC

    3:22-cv-01145-RBM-DDL (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    ; see also In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”); Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”).

  4. Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

    22-cv-04486-BLF (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023)

    The Court finds that disclosure of this material would plausibly cause LIV competitive harm by hampering its ability to negotiate future contracts and therefore warrants sealing under the “compelling reasons” standard. See Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (finding compelling reasons to seal where party would suffer competitive harm in future negotiations with third parties). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal the material that LIV contends “describe specific negotiations and offers to certain players, agents, sponsors, and broadcasters, including specific terms of offers.”

  5. Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs.

    3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2022)

    (collecting cases); see also In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”); Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”).

  6. Jerome's Furniture Warehouse v. Ashley Furniture Indus.

    3:20-cv-01765-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2022)

    (collecting cases); see also In re Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to seal “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms”); Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”).

  7. Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs.

    3:19-cv-02043-RBM-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2022)

    McCurley, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2; see also Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”); Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int'l, LLC, No. 15-CV-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 1035730, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (granting motion to seal documents containing defendant's “pricing and shipping information” where court found such information “could be improperly used” by competitors); Lucas v. Breg, Inc., No. 15-CV-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016 WL 5464549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal party's confidential “sales and marketing data” where “public disclosure of this business information could result in improper use by Breg's competitors seeking to undercut Breg's market position”).

  8. Talavera Hair Prods. v. Taizhou Yunsung Elec. Appliance Co.

    18-cv-00823-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal. May. 23, 2022)

    The Court finds compelling reasons to seal the documents subject to Plaintiff's motion. See Quidel Corp. v. Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc., No. 16-CV-3059-BAS-AGS, 2020 WL 1062949, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2020) (applying compelling reasons standard to seal plaintiff's “confidential financial and pricing information”); Obesity Rsch. Inst., LLC v. Fiber Rsch. Int'l, LLC, No. 15-CV-595-BAS-MDD, 2017 WL 1035730, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017)