The opinion
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB
11 | SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION; MEDIMPACT ORDER GRANTING
12 | INTERNATIONAL LLC, A PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE
CALIFORNIA LIMITED UNDER SEAL
13 | LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL
14 | HONG KONG LTD., A HONG
KONG COMPANY Judge: The Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
15 ,
16 Plaintiffs, [ECF No. 795]
17 Vv.
IQVIA INC., a Delaware corporation;
18 | IOVIA LTD., a UK company: IQVIA
AG, a Swiss company; OMAR
19 | GHOSHEH, individually; and AMIT
SADANA, individually; and DOES 1-
20 || 20,
21 Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB
1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal Documents in Support of
2 || Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) Objection and Motion to Set Aside
3 || Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (the
4 || “Motion”). (ECF No. 796.)
5 The Motion seeks to seal Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Declaration of Jennifer
6 |} Bennett in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) Objection
7 || and Motion to Set Aside Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for
8 || Sanctions. Exhibit 6 exhibit is an excerpted copy a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
9 || transcript. The witness was Dale Brown on behalf of Plaintiff MedImpact. Exhibit 7
10 | is an excerpted copy a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcript. The witness was Krishna
11 | Guttikonda on behalf of Plaintiff MedImpact. Both exhibits have been designated
12 | as highly confidential under the protective order governing this case. Both exhibits
13 || discuss Plaintiffs’ confidential policies and procedures regarding the preservation of
14 | electronic information. Plaintiffs do business in an industry where the preservation
15 || and confidentiality of information is highly regulated. Thus, Plaintiffs practices
16 || with respect to preservation and confidentiality are both proprietary and sensitive.
17 Accordingly, the disclosure of this information would subject Plaintiffs and
18 || Defendants to a risk of substantial harm or prejudice. See McArdle v. AT&T
19 || Mobility LLC, No. 09-cv-1117, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218070, at *13-14 (N.D.
20 || Cal. Aug. 13, 2018).
21 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there are compelling reasons to
22 || GRANT the Motion. It is ORDERED that Exhibits shall be SEALED until further
23 || order of this Court.
24 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
06 Dated: January 10, 2023 C2. sale (0
7 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
28 United States District Judge
Cd Case No. 3:19-ev-01865-GPC-DEB