Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review
BLOGS & LEGAL INSIGHTS:
BUSINESS LAW
Hero-Split-Right
CONSUMER LAW

Hero-Split-Left

 

WEBINARS

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

VIDEO LIBRARY

green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

2 min read

Advertising Compliance: The ImprimisRx vs. OSRX

A desk that is lightly cluttered, and on it

In the case of ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc., ImprimisRx, LLC brought a legal dispute against OSRX, Inc. and Ocular Science, Inc. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, centered around the protection of sensitive business and health information in court documents. Judge Cynthia Bashant presided over the matter, issuing a ruling on October 24, 2023, that focused on the sealing of documents submitted during the litigation.

Motions to Seal Filed by ImprimisRx and OSRX

ImprimisRx sought to seal portions of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, its Response to the Defendants' Motion, and a series of exhibits. These documents contained sensitive internal communications, business strategies, and information related to dosing schedules for ophthalmological products. ImprimisRx argued that public disclosure of these details could jeopardize its competitive standing. In response, OSRX and Ocular Science requested the sealing of specific exhibits linked to their Opposition to ImprimisRx’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. These exhibits included strategy presentations, internal pricing details, and data related to customer interactions.

Court's Evaluation of Confidentiality Standards

Judge Bashant's decision relied on the legal framework for sealing documents in federal courts. Federal law generally supports public access to court records, requiring that any restrictions be justified with compelling reasons. The court determined that documents containing sensitive business information, such as competitive strategies, customer-specific data, and future business planning, could meet this standard if disclosure risked harming the parties involved.

The court carefully examined each request, assessing whether the documents were sufficiently tied to the central issues of the case and whether their disclosure could disadvantage the parties competitively. The legal standard emphasized that any sealing must be narrowly tailored, allowing the court to protect sensitive information without restricting access to less critical details.

Court's Ruling on the Motions to Seal

Judge Bashant issued a mixed ruling. Some of the motions to seal were granted, while others were denied. Documents revealing detailed business strategies, confidential customer negotiations, and specific business tactics were deemed sensitive enough to be sealed. For instance, internal emails that discussed competitive dynamics and plans for future business development were shielded from public view. The court acknowledged that disclosure of such information could provide competitors with an unfair advantage.

However, other requests were denied. The court did not find sufficient grounds to seal older strategy presentations, now considered outdated, or general product catalogs that were already publicly accessible. These documents, in the court’s view, did not pose a risk to the parties' competitive standing or contain sensitive personal data.

Conclusion

Judge Bashant’s ruling balanced between transparency in judicial proceedings and the protection of sensitive information. The decision clarified that while federal courts are inclined towards open access, businesses could shield certain confidential details if they demonstrate a clear risk of competitive harm. By carefully limiting redactions and emphasizing targeted sealing, the court provided a framework for how sensitive information should be handled in litigation, maintaining a commitment to fairness and accountability in the legal process.