The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MEDPACE, INC., :
:
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, : Case No. 1:25-cv-00302
:
v. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
:
APOLLOMICS, INC.,
:
:
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.
:
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Apollomics, Inc.’s
Unopposed Motion to File Document Under Seal (Doc. 8). For the reasons set forth herein,
the Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Medpace, Inc. (“Medpace”) is an Ohio corporation that runs clinical trials
and provides other services to companies developing pharmaceutical and other medical
products. Compl., ¶ 1. Defendant Apollomics, Inc. (“Apollomics”) is a California corporation
that develops, manufactures, and distributes pharmaceutical products. Id. ¶ 2. The two
companies entered into a contract on June 21, 2019 under which Medpace agreed to perform
clinical trials and other services for Apollomics related to the development of cancer treatment
Vebreltinib. Compl., ¶ 6; Doc. 9, ¶ 6. In that contract, the parties agreed that the specific
projects Medpace would carry out would be set forth in separate work orders agreed by the
parties. Compl., ¶ 7. The two companies then agreed upon and executed two work orders
and several amendments to those work orders. Id. ¶¶ 8–10. Medpace alleges that it fully
performed its duties specified in the work orders and amendments thereto, and invoiced
Apollomics for its services, but Apollomics failed to pay the amount owed. Id. ¶¶ 18–19.
On May 9, 2025, Medpace filed suit for breach of contract, seeking damages of $380,756
together with contractual interest. Id. ¶ 25. It did not attach to its complaint copies of the
relevant contracts because of the contracts’ “confidential and proprietary nature and
contents.” Id. ¶ 6 n.1.
Apollomics filed an Answer and Counterclaim (Doc. 9) on July 11, 2025, claiming
that Medpace failed to adequately perform the agreed services and charged Apollomics for
work Medpace never performed. See Doc. 9, ¶ 38. The Answer and Counterclaim was
partially redacted.
Along with its answer and counterclaims, Apollomics filed the Motion presently
under consideration, seeking to file under seal several relevant contracts between the
parties: the Master Services Agreement, the first work order agreement, and several
amendments to the first work order agreement. Doc. 8, PageID 17. It also seeks leave to
file an unredacted copy of its answer and counterclaims. Id. at PageID 15.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A party seeking to seal court records bears the heavy burden of overcoming a “strong
presumption in favor of openness.” Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 825
F.3d 299, 305 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d
1165, 1179 (6th Cir. 1983)). This presumption arises because “‘[t]he public has a strong
interest in obtaining the information contained in the court record,’ which includes ‘an
interest in ascertaining what evidence and records’” a court relies upon in making its decision.
Lipman v. Budish, 974 F.3d 726, 753 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at
1180–81). Indeed, “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial
records.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983).
In order to meet its substantial burden, the party seeking to seal court records “must
show three things: (1) a compelling interest in sealing the records; (2) that the interest in
sealing outweighs the public’s interest in accessing the records; and (3) that the request is
narrowly tailored.” Kondash v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 767 F. App’x 635, 637 (6th Cir. 2019).
The moving party must therefore “analyze in detail, document by document, the propriety of
secrecy, providing reasons and legal citations.” Shane Grp., 825 F.3d at 305–06 (quoting Baxter
Int’l, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 548 (7th Cir. 2002)). Likewise, when a district court
elects to seal court records, it must set forth specific findings and conclusions that justify
nondisclosure to the public. Brown & Williamson, 710 F.2d at 1176.
III. ANALYSIS
Apollomics contends that the material it seeks to file under seal contains “propriet[ar]y
and sensitive business information.” Doc. 8, PageID 19. It represents that the contracts
contain “pricing and related sensitive information regarding the clinical trials in question,”
and public disclosure of the contracts would “risk competitive and economic harm” to the
parties. Id.
The Court agrees that Apollomics has met its burden to demonstrate the necessity of
sealing the documents at issue. The Court will assess in order each document that Apollomics
seeks to file under seal:
Unredacted counterclaims
Apollomics seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of its answer and
counterclaims. Having reviewed the redacted version, the Court concludes that Apollomics
has met its burden. The redactions in the complaint are limited: Apollomics appears to have
redacted only budget figures, see, e.g., Doc. 9, ¶ 15, and some details regarding Medpace’s
administration of clinical trials, e.g., Doc. 9, ¶ 40. The request to file this information under
seal is “narrowly tailored,” see Kondash, 767 F.App’x at 637, and the Court concludes that
Medpace has demonstrated a compelling business interest in sealing this information, which
outweighs the public’s interest in accessing it. While the sealed information could help the
public better understand the exact contours of the dispute, the public can understand much of
the dispute based on information that will remain public.
Exhibit A – Master Services Agreement
Apollomics also seeks to file under seal the Master Services Agreement (“MSA”),
which is the overarching agreement under which Medpace agreed to carry out clinical trials
for Apollomics. Apollomics has also met its burden to justify sealing this document. While
the Court would benefit from a more thorough description in Apollomics’ Motion of the
contents of the Agreement, the counterclaim makes clear that the MSA provides detailed
information regarding the project itself and the pricing agreed by the parties. See Doc. 9, ¶¶
20–21. Apollomics has met its burden to justify sealing this document because it contains
“confidential business information, including confidential pricing information and business
strategy.” Pro. Investigating & Consulting Agency, Inc. v. SOS Sec. LLC, No. 2:19-cv-3304, 2022
WL 4376227, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 22, 2022). Apollomics’s interest in sealing this contract
outweighs the public’s interest in accessing it.
Exhibit B – Work Order No. 1
Apollomics seeks to file under seal Work Order No. 1, one of the work orders under
which Medpace agreed to carry out clinical trials for Apollomics. The Court is satisfied that
this document, like the MSA, contains confidential pricing and other information regarding
the Vebreltinib clinical trials. Further, the Court is satisfied that the public will be able to
understand the dispute based on excerpts of the Work Order provided in the parties’ briefing,
and accordingly the parties’ interest in protecting this confidential business information
outweighs the public’s interest in having access to this document to better understand the
dispute. See Doc. 9, ¶ 14 (quoting from Work Order No. 1). See also Pro. Investigating &
Consulting Agency, Inc. 2022 WL 4376227, at *2 (“[T]he public has a lesser interest in viewing
this confidential business information because it is not needed to understand the events giving
rise to the dispute or the arguments in the case.”)
Exhibit C – Changes in Scope Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10
Apollomics seeks leave to file under seal nine Change in Scope agreements between
the parties. These Change in Scope agreements set out important agreed details of the parties’
engagement, including the timeline for Medpace’s work on the project. See Doc. 9, ¶ 16.
Similar to Work Order No. 1, the Court concludes that the public will be able to understand
the dispute based on summaries of and excerpts from these agreements included in the parties’
briefs. See Doc. 9, ¶ 16 (summarizing contents of Change in Scope No. 1). See also London
Computer Systems, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-696, 2019 WL 4110516, at *4 (S.D. Ohio
Aug. 29, 2019) (“[T]he public will not need to view the parties’ highly confidential business
information to understand the events giving rise to this dispute, or the arguments made in [the
parties’ briefing].”). Accordingly, this request to seal is narrowly tailored, and Apollomics’
interest in confidentiality outweighs the public’s interest in access to these documents. The
Court concludes that Apollomics has satisfied its burden as to filing Exhibit C under seal.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Apollomics’s Unopposed Motion to File Document
Under Seal (Doc. 8). is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. .
July 18, 2025 ( 7 Oy a liberi
Jeffery P’ Hopkins
United States District Judge